Category Archives: Populism

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

Populism is normally a partisan political tactic. Reactionary and reductive, cynical and manipulative; almost always the mother of bad laws, government overreach and encroachments on civil liberties. The democratic process, the push and pull of left and right, usually serves to tamper legislation that emerges from it.

There is however one form of populism that has historically brought left and right together in mutual spasms of conservative hysteria: Luddite populism. Always a response to panic about new technologies or adjacent trends, these politically convenient displays of performative solidarity are satisfying and cathartic for worried parents; red and blue. And pleasing to unions, and corporations, both weary of disruption. The laws that result are often shortsighted and dangerous. Whats worse, the mediating force of political opposition is absent, so the risk of them passing into law is higher. Libertarian legislators do what they can, but are always outnumbered outliers. Historically a handful of activist technologists are tasked with defending the future and technological progress.

In recent months US politics has seen a resurgence of Luddite populism, with numerous bills moving forward with bi-partisan support. Political deadlock and the failure to pass President Bidens Build Back Better plan, has made Democrats realize thatin the words of Susan Collins in a 50-50 Senate, the only way youre going to be able to produce any accomplishments that matter to the American people is to work across the aisle. So they crossed it and began to legislate.

First, there was the EARN IT Act, which would almost certainly disincentivize the use of end-to-end encryption by large online services and undercut section 230 liability protection. Introduced by Republican Lindsey Graham and Democrat Richard Blumenthal, it has 11 Republican co-sponsors and 10 Democrats. Next is the NUDGE Act that would see government approved content curation algorithms, something that is almost certainly unconstitutional. This bill was created by Democrat Amy Klobuchar and introduced by Republican Cynthia Lummis. The Open App Market Act was another introduced by Blumenthal in early February, which would force Apple to allow apps to be installed outside its AppStore. This could jeopardize many consumer protection features Apple has built voluntarilymany of which achieve the very same ends as regulations. Its sponsors? 4 Democrats and 6 Republicans. And just last week, the Kids Online Safety Act was introducedagain by Blumenthal. Which, among other things, would force social media platforms to give parents of kids 16 or younger parental controls, many of which iOS and Android already do.

Chairman Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), left, and Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), right, greet each other with an elbow bump.

Andrew Harnik - Pool/Getty Images

To understand this political moment, the risks it brings and what is at stake, we must look back at Luddite populism of the past and the bad laws it almost, and sometimes, has brought about.

The 1950s saw the infamous anti-comic book Subcommittee on Juvenile Delinquency, which consisted of two Republicans and two Democrats. All four were pandering to moral panic caused by dubious research from psychologist Fredrick Wertham and an accompanying book which led to comic book burnings in multiple states. Wertham claimed, among other things, that Batman and Robin could encourage homosexuality because in his mind they were clearly a couple. In a televised congressional hearing Wertham said I think Hitler was a beginner compared to the comic book industry. The hearing made the front of The New York Times and the industry would soon adopt the Comics Code Authority, an onerous list of content rules that decimated the industry and notably prohibited LGBT characters or content until the 1980s.

In 1985, responding to concerns about rock music, Tipper Gore, wife of then Senator Al Gore, formed the Parents Music Resource Center, which included wives of prominent Democrats and Republicans. The target? The Filthy 15a set of songs that they claimed needed censure to protect children. In a televised Senate hearing Al and Tipper Gore confronted rock stars. At one point Mr. Gore asked Dee Snider whether his bands fan club Sick Motherfucking Fans of Twisted Sister was Christian. Mrs. Gore would release a book a few years later titled Raising PG Kids in an X-Rated Society.

Sally Nevius (left) and Tipper Gore (right) of the Parents Music Resource Center at a Senate hearing on 19th September 1985.

Photo by Mark Weiss/Getty Images

In 1991 then-Senator Joseph Biden introduced legislation that would prohibit encryptionthe bill was co-sponsored by two Democrats and a Republican. This famously motivated Phil Zimmerman to finish and release his open source encryption program, PGP. Helping widespread mass adoption of the technology. Then in 1993, the Clinton administration took another shot at encryption with the Clipper Chipan encryption backdoor, with Al Gore tasked with promoting it. In response Phil Zimmerman would release a sequel to PGP, PGPfone, to help make the chip irrelevant. After much protest and a paper highlighted a vulnerability in the chip, the plan was abandoned.

That same year, concerns about video game violence began to pick-up. A 1993 Senate hearings on video games was organized by Senators Joe Lieberman and Herb Kohl, where Mortal Kombat and other games were blamed for an uptick in violencemuch like television was at the time.

As the 1996 election beckoned, the Clinton campaign looked to another chip mandatethe TV censoring V-Chipas a way to appeal to parents who worried about the influence of television on children. At a press conference Bill Clinton and Tipper Gore sat with parents, where she decried televisions slide into violent debauchery, Power Rangers being her example. Separately Clinton promised the V-Chip could become a powerful voice against teen violence, teen pregnancy and teen drug use. The mandate was part of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which included another provision to ban internet porn, promoted on the Senate floor via a folder full of internet smut. The act received over 90 percent support and was signed into law (porn prohibition was later ruled unconstitutional.)

In the aftermath of the 1999 Columbine Massacre, these narratives would come back to haunt Democrats when Republicans and the NRA used prior concerns about video games and music lyrics to distract from the gun control debate. Not only did Democrats fail to meaningfully push back on these fallaciesprobably because they helped create themthey embraced them, with President Clinton saying Video games like Mortal Kombat, Killer Instinct and DOOM make our children more active participants in simulated violence. Hillary Clinton would echo her husband as a Senator in 2005 when she said We need to treat violent video games the way we treat tobacco, alcohol, and pornography.

Bill Clinton, holds an ad for a children's video game that reads, What kind of psycho drives a school bus into a war zone? in June 1999.

Photo by Paul J. Richards/Getty Images

While blaming violence, drug use and promiscuity on music and video games has since become a less bi-partisan notion. Progressive politicians are again falling for the convenient allure of Luddite populism, with social media as the new boogeyman.

In 2018 the Center for Humane Technology launched (with help from Common Sense Media) and would go on to release the Netflix blockbuster documentary The Social Dilemma, which presented unsubstantiated claims as facts, while denying the well-documented history of unfounded fears about new technologies. The groups co-founderTristan Harriswould appear on Joe Rogans podcast, where he would uncritically tout new Chinese laws that pushed patriot videos (propaganda) into social media feeds and enforced screen time limits. He insisted he was not praising this heavy handed approach, however when Sen. Josh Hawley introduced the SMART act, a draconian social media bill, his organizations newsletter would list it as a legislative win, in which it implied it played a role in influencing.

Right leaning orgs like the Heritage Foundation have followed their lead with a recent report on killer apps spouting many of the same unfounded claims about social media and mental health. This narrative offers a convenient scapegoat for gun violence and allows NRA aligned candidates such as Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers to appeal to worried parents by proclaiming social media is her number one concern as a parent, while at the same time opposing masking in schools and voting for looser gun controls.

The bi-partisan appeal of Luddite populism endures and, as in the past, we are scapegoating new trends to explain complex societal problems. This myopia has a legislative opportunity cost, just like it did in the aftermath of Columbinewhen time spent discussing 16-bit virtual guns, could have been about real 17-caliber ones.

While bi-partisan lawmaking can feel like progress in the midst of political deadlock, history showswhen its driven by Luddite populismits almost certainly regressive.

More:

Democrats and Republicans Unite to Bash Big Tech But Luddite Populism Is Not Helping Anyone - The Daily Beast

Few figures have inspired the so-called populist right in recent years as much as Vladimir Putin, a leader who has championed extreme Russian nationalism hand in hand with a revival of the most conservative iteration of the Russian Orthodox church, appealing to christian nationalists and neo-fascists around the world. His strongman politics have led to the legalized persecution of long marginalized groups like gays and lesbians within the Russian Federation in ways North American rightwingers like Steve Bannon or Ben Shapiro could only dream of.

While disingenuous culture war still rages in North America and Europe, these battles mostly seem to have already been won by reactionaries in the Russian Federation and what amount to its vassal states like neighboring Belarus. In Muslim Chechnya, where 2 brutal wars were fought in the 1990s and early in this century, the Putin supported government runs what amount to concentration camps for LGBTQI+ communities and has reportedly useddeath squadsto go after those who have fled this persecution and their allies living abroad.

The witch hunts targeting LGBTQI+ people in Russia and its allies have been especially popular with North American far right evangelicals, who seem to feel that their bigotry is justified by their religion. Belief systems that seem to have become infected with thewhitechristian identity politicspopular with certain neo-Nazi groups more than 20 years ago.

In their early endorsements of what appeared at the time to be mere saber rattling directed by Putin and his subordinates at neighboring Ukraine, far right populists in the West applauded the 69 year old Russian presidents manliness, often making an argument previously championed by anti-imperialists on the left about NATO encroachment into Russias traditional sphere influence. After the invasion commentators like Fox News pundit Tucker Carlson quickly changed tunes, blaming weak Democrats like Joe Biden for Putins folly.

That this aggression and the lives already lost cant be justified under any pretenses doesnt detract from legitimate criticism of NATOs eastward expansion after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989, when the perceived threat from Russia ended. The strategy of what amounts to encirclement is short-sighted as such things almost always are when powerful economic interests are involved. The best we can hope for now is that diplomacy will prevail in the current crisis and that the conflict in Ukraine will be as short as possible despite the windfall involved for Western and Russian arms manufacturers alike.

Speaking of short sighted people, as tensions were rising in eastern Europe, some at the CPAC event held at the end of last month in Florida, including that states governor and Texas Senator Ted Cruz, argued that the crisis over Ukraine should be ignored because the U.S. itself is facing aninvasionof its own along the countrys southern border, referring to asylum seekers mostly armed with their children and elderly relatives.

In Europe, leaders on the far right from Frances Marine Le Pen to Italys Matteo Salvini and Hungarys Viktor Orban, who have all celebrated Putin as representative of the kind of strong leader they want to emulate have mostly bowed to public backlash in the wake of the savagery being inflicted not far from their doorsteps.

In purely political terms, the about faces are interesting because these are the same far right groupings that seemed to be once again growing in strength, especially with upcoming elections in France offeringtwo far right candidatesjockeying to see who can be most offensive in arguing that their country has been both Islamized and feminized.

While the similar, if less thought out and focus grouped populism of American reality TV star Donald Trump seemed temporarily in retreat in North America after the events of January 6that the U.S. capitol, anger at public health measures led to a trucker convoy that descended on Ottawa, the small city thats home to Canadas federal government and at a variety of border crossings into the United States, energized these forces on both sides of the U.S. northern border. The convoy organizers, a motley crew of far right demagogues and conspiracy theorists also raised millions in later seized funds showing they were far from spent force.

Alarmingly, the convoy protesters in Canada seemed to have a lot of mostly quiet support from police, something weve seen with groups like the Proud Boys in the United States in the past.

As we might have expected the former U.S. president was among the first to come out in support of Russias declaration recognizing the regions of Luhansk and Donetsk, where a large Russian speaking minority has been fighting Ukraines government since 2015, as independent on February 21stprior to the invasion proper, calling the movegenius.

Trump went on to say, He used the word independent and were gonna go out and were gonna go in and were gonna help keep peace. You gotta say thats pretty savvy.

The former U.S. president went uncharacteristically silent for a couple of days as Russian tanks and armored vehicles rolled into Ukraine, setting off the largest conflict in Europe in decades and shocking the world in the process. As Russian casualties have continued to mount, the invasion seems anything but savvy.

Hopefully, the reaction to events in Europe and across the Atlantic by rightwing populist leaders like Trump will at least slow down the perceived momentum created by the Canadian trucker convoy and legisltaive wins like the Dont Say Gay bill at the state level in the United States, especially with mid-term elections in the U.S. not too far off.

While its the last thing that most on the progressive left want to do since these issues already seem settled, we will need to engage with the culture wars that seem to be among the few winning issues for the right, if only to protect and elevate the most marginalized of working people.

Though the populist right is even more inclined to seek the simplest of solutions to complex problems than even traditional conservatives and neo-conservative hawks, parts of the left have a tendency to ignore nuance as well. It shouldnt be controversial to say that while U.S. and allied imperialism must be opposed, despite its weakness by comparison, Russian imperialism must also be challenged. Its just common sense.

FALL FUNDRAISER

If you liked this article, please donate $5 to keep NationofChange online through November.

Excerpt from:

Vladimir Putin's war has dealt a blow to the 'populist' right - NationofChange

Tom Cotton thought it was a big deal, and perhaps it was in the vicinity, even if Mike Pence had already blazed the path.

It was Cotton's turn to speak in the "Time for Choosing" series at the Reagan Presidential Library, which is showcasing potential Republican presidential candidates for 2024 or beyond.

He leaked ahead of time a key element of his prepared remarks and linked on social media the address by which we could all watch Monday evening.

He was introduced as "courageous" by the director of the library, who extolled the fortuitous timing of hearing from such an important voice with world events in great unrest.

Mostly Cotton delivered standard loathing. He blamed Joe Biden's debacle in Afghanistan for Vladimir Putin's inhumanity in Ukraine. He said we need to put more people, not fewer, in prison. He said we need to teach positive themes in school, not anti-American ones.

But here was his nut graph, the element of his 45-minute address about which he'd provided advance notice and by which he was seeking to fashion a political place for himself and a new political positioning for his party: The Republican Party need not choose between Donald Trump and Ronald Reagan, but walk the bridge that naturally spans them, which is an American populism in the frontier spirit of Andrew Jackson, who championed the common man against elitists.

Last June, Pence took his turn in this cattle call of Republican wannabes and broke the ground that Cotton plowed. The former vice president said in his speech that Reagan and Trump were similar "disrupters" at a time disruption was vital.

Cotton went further and was instantly ridiculed, of course, from the left. The scoffing came to a great extent from people who weren't alive or old enough to experience the deep liberal 1980s scorn for Reagan, for the extreme conservatism of a product of the entertainment industry who attracted working class-voters--Reagan Democrats, they were called--and co-opted Southern religious evangelicals even though he was divorced and didn't go to church himself.

Does that sound like anyone else? Sure. It sounds like Trump.

The difference in the men and their presidencies is not policy or theme. It's entirely personal style. That and insurrection, which still goes to personal style.

Reagan beheld an America in decline and eloquently extolled a new morning in that shining city on a hill. Then he cut taxes for rich people and nominated conservative judges.

Trump beheld an America in decline and darkly proclaimed a dystopian land from which only he could make America great again. And then cut taxes for rich people and nominated conservative judges.

Reagan was affable and a friend of the Democratic House speaker assigned him. Trump was an egomaniacal madman who spoke derisively of any political figure who crossed him.

Reagan was friendly with his Soviet counterpart but told him to "tear down this wall" and vowed to trust him, but verify. Trump was enamored of and subservient to his infinitely worse Russian counterpart.

Reagan got re-elected by a landslide. Trump got wiped out for re-election by women and educated suburbanites who disapproved of his style, not his policies and not his theme of capturing the old Reagan Democrats with anti-elite populism.

Cotton was seeking to outline a political formulation acceptable in its extreme conservatism to Trump's base but less behaviorally unacceptable to moderates who are looking for something they can tolerate as a counter to impractical new Democratic progressivism and ineptitude.

He has a glimmer of credibility in the matter, having advised and stood by Trump but breaking with him by telling the obvious truth that there was no way Congress could do anything with the report of the Electoral College other than rubber-stamp it.

Cotton's speech essentially was proposing: How about a Reagan-Trump blend? How about me in that context, harsh like Trump but not as insanely insurrectionist, and solidly conservative like Reagan but more modern than to make nice with any Democratic speaker of the House, not that we'll have one much longer?

The junior senator's campaign theme for 2024 might be "dystopian, but not full-on nuts."

While tactically onto something, Cotton was hardly bold. If he wanted to champion a truly meaningful contemporary Republican bridge, he would propose one spanning Trump and Liz Cheney. Or Dick Cheney. Or Mitt Romney. Or George W. Bush.

But that may be beyond the scope of modern engineering.

Anyway, Cotton and Republican strategists calculate that, in the way things seem to be going, spanning and getting between Trump's madness and Reagan's memory ought to suffice against Biden and the current band of congressional Democrats.

John Brummett, whose column appears regularly in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, is a member of the Arkansas Writers' Hall of Fame. Email him at jbrummett@arkansasonline.com. Read his @johnbrummett Twitter feed.

More here:

OPINION | JOHN BRUMMETT: The Tom Cotton bridge - Arkansas Online

National populiststhe same people who are dogmatic about protecting national bordersare in a tough spot right now, thanks to Vladimir Putins war of aggression on Ukraine.

The same ultra-nationalists passionate about building a wall on the U.S. southern border, or obliterating the EU and returning to hard borders among European nation statesseemed utterly unconcerned about Ukraines borders during the run-up to war. These folks are also known for the fetishization of masculinity and toughness, and yet they suddenly became introspective, nuanced, and dovish in their excuses for Putins invasion of a sovereign nation.

Up until now, the ultranationalists enjoyed the luxury of criticizing the establishment without having to accept any actual responsibility. In their minds, the elites of both parties were always effete, decadent, and bumblingregardless of what they said or did. Opposing whatever they said carried little risk.

So when the Biden regime and the corporate media started warning about a possible Russian invasion of Ukraine, the nationalists reacted with mockery, working off of the assumption that this was all so much globalist hyperventilating.

Instead, Putin called their bluff, and the national populists became the dog who caught the car. And by catching the car, I mean, slamming into it. Suddenly, inconsistencies that could once be swept under the rug by the national populists (hereafter, referred to as natcons) were now impossible to avoid.

...if one exalts rugged manliness, has there ever been a better example of that than the courage being exhibited by Ukraine?

Here are a few questions that are now hard to escape:

If one believes national borders are sacrosanct, why not respect Ukraines?

If the answer is that one solely cares about Making America Great Again, then why all the interest in boosting the European far right, Hungarys Viktor Orbn, Indias Narendra Modi, and even the right-wing ultranationalists of Israel?

If one hates and fears foreign dictators (see their attacks on Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau), why all the love for Putin?

And if one exalts rugged manliness, has there ever been a better example of that than the courage being exhibited by Ukraine?

As journalist Michael Weiss (formerly of The Daily Beast) recently told me, If your argument is a defense of traditional masculine virtue, then whos more manlyright-wing pundits, Putin, or Volodymyr Zelensky, the guy whos literally walking through streets that are under attack?

Irony, too, is no respecter of boundaries.

During a recent episode of The Remnant podcast, Jonah Goldberg noted that natcons were quick to celebrate anti-mask and anti-vaccine mandate protests, but when the actual spirit of a sort of Andrew Jackson-type of America [shows up,] theyre like Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. Everyone needs to calm down. There are two sides to every story. Putins not the bad guy the corporate medias telling you [he] is.

In short, Putins invasion has exposed the fact that Americas ultra-nationalist populism isnt just hypocritical, its incoherent.

Of course, the natcons had no way of knowing that Ukrainians would rise to the occasion and expose their inconsistencies. But in the runup to war, the natcons deployed plenty of prebuttal spin. Addressing the question of why people who obsess over borders dont care about Ukraines, a natcon explained on Fox News that Ukraine wasnt a real nation, but one that is essentially managed by the [U.S.] State Department. Former Trump White House senior adviser and Breitbart boss Steve Bannon said the same thing on his own podcast.

The natcons also threw in a lot of random misdirection to muddy the waters and justify their comments and actions.

They noted that (a) Ukraine is far away (Im sick of being told that we have to care more about people 6,000 miles away than we do people like my mom.) And besides, b) what about Americas borders? I mean, c) Putin never called me a racist! And dont forget, d) all the Burisma money the Biden crime family got paid. Besides, e) Putin is pro-Christian and f) the woke U.S. military is a godless arm of the Democratic Party. Besides, g) there is quite literally no Russian threat. Warnings of invasion were h) baseless and embarrassingly incorrect. Sure, i) Russia may annex some separatist areas full of Russian language speakers, but thats no big deal. Biden just has to j) call it an invasion otherwise this whole media/government act will seem like a fraud. I could go on.

Again, movements are messy, and this incipient coalition is far from monolithic. But it is clear that these bullshit natcon excuses were tantamount to throwing spaghetti at the wall and seeing if anything sticks.

What these natcons do seem to have in common is a hellbent determination upend the post-World War II rules-based liberal order. With all of their being, they oppose a worldview that includes an affinity for alliances with freedom-loving nations, as well as other maxims such as appeasing a strongman is like feeding a crocodile, and hoping he will eat you last.

Putins irredentist ambitions led him to actually launch a full-scale invasion of Ukraine, which caught the natcons completely flat-footed. It also raised the stakes for themas it exposed trolling the libs and needling the neocons as the hollow, performative tactics they are.

Retroactive attempts by natcons to distance themselves from Putin and explain why they were so wrong have been just as scattershot.

On Thursday night, for example, Tucker Carlson claimed that Kamala Harriss involvement in diplomatic efforts with our allies signaled to him that the Ukraine crisis wasnt imminently serious. Using the royal we, he continued, We didnt underestimate Vladimir Putin; we overestimated Joe Biden. Tucker is probably one of the smartest people I know, but this is one of the lamest excuses for blowing a story that I have seen.

These tortured attempts to move on from their past comments may be embarrassing, but it was just a matter of time before things would come to a head and the natcons would have to confront their incoherence.

What their miscalculation of Putins invasion illustrated is that natcons lack a shared commitment to any concrete philosophical principles, other than admiration for authoritarians who wield power without concern for inconveniences like democracy. Many also have a tribal affinity for the right (which seems to, more often than not, feature an affinity for white cultural Christians), and a concomitant visceral opposition to the left.

Where does this ultra-national populism lead? As America has only dabbled in this unsavory brand of politics, this is, perhaps, the most important question.

To the degree that Putin and his cheerleaders are avatars of it, I think we now know the answer: The little guy gets screwed. In the name of peacekeeping, cities are destroyed and innocent citizens are slaughtered.

But at least Putin showed everyone hes not to be fucked with!

Read more:

Right-Wing Ultra-Nationalists Are Putin's Useful Idiots - The Daily Beast

On Jan. 22, Freedom Convoy protestors amassed outside of the Canadian Parliament demanding an end to a mandate for truckers in Canada to be vaccinated against COVID-19.

The truckers were eventually joined by thousands of other Canadians upset with these lockdown policies and Trudeaus government.

The mandate particularly applied to those reentering Canada from foreign countries, including truckers coming back from the United States, as well as anyone on a flight coming back to Canada.

The movement is led by one Tamara Lich of the new Maverick Party in Canada, a secessionist party advocating for autonomy for the western provinces of Canada and possible secession and independence from the rest of the country.

The party was pro convoy, and their most recent publication on their website hails the purported successes of the movement as fixing the economy and advancing the cause of freedom. The document also acknowledged the resignation of Tamara Lich, citing her commitment to remaining in Ottawa until all restrictions are lifted.

Lich was arrested on Feb. 17 on charges of counseling to commit mischief, relating to her efforts to crowdfund the movement. She was denied bail and will see trial on March 2.

In addition to protests in Ottawa, some under the banner of the Freedom Convoy blocked the Ambassador Bridge into Detroit on Feb. 7, disrupting automotive production in Detroit as parts were not able to be shipped. Police broke up the protest on Feb. 13, arresting an estimated 25-30 people.

Eventually, the government moved to end the protests on Feb. 15, invoking acts for emergency power citing a threat to Canadian national security. The protestors had disrupted the national supply chain and some arrested protestors were heavily armed.

Police moved in on Feb. 18 to finally clear out the largest block of the protestors, clearing Ottawa within two days. At least 100 people were arrested on Feb. 19 and 21 vehicles were towed in the efforts to clear out the streets.

While the movement did not succeed in convincing the government to lift mandates, it did secure a victory for right populism in Canada by being a movement that managed to gain traction, where it had failed to do so previously.

In 2019, a similar movement was launched to protest government energy policy and advocate for oil pipelines. The protest did not garner as much attention as the most recent convoy, and devolved into complaints about immigration that were often overtly racist.

Due to the nature of Canadas political culture and parliamentary system, it is not as easy for right populists to gain a foothold in politics as it has been in the United States. This means that the mainstream Conservative Party has not fully embraced politics like that of its fellow conservatives in the U.S.

But, the movement is part of a growing trend in Canadian politics to embrace what were less mainstream positions. The Conservative Party leader, Erin OToole, was recently removed from power over a lack of sufficient support for the convoy movement, a move which echoes the Republican censure of Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger for participating in the Congressional investigation into the Jan. 6 protests.

The movement indicates that Canada may be joining the rest of Western democracies in the rise of right populism. It also may be the beginning of a trend that will travel outside of Canadas borders, as a recent attempt to create a similar convoy in the U.S. launched recently, though it failed to garner much support.

One thing that is certain is that this political trend is not leaving any time soon. It will manifest itself in different ways as it progresses, adapting to the conditions at hand, but the right wing populist wave is not a fluke.

See the original post here:

Understanding "Freedom Convoy" movement | The Chimes - The Chimes

I am delighted to introduce my first edition of the annual Global Impact Report. It has been inspiring to learn about the history of the University and its unconventional founding. Our institution was founded by local community leaders to meet the many challenges of the day and to propel the region, and our nation, forward.

Being unconventional has fostered a spirit of curiosity and taking risks to not only generate new ideas through research excellence but convert those ideas to create something that has a positive impact on the world.

Waterloos unique approach to addressing the worlds greatest challenges is built on boundary-pushing research, experiential education and entrepreneurship. And we bring these strengths to bear on addressing the human dimensions of global challenges, understanding and enhancing human experiences and examining ways to translate knowledge for governance and policy.

Throughout the report, you will encounter examples of Waterloo researchers, alumni and students who are making a tangible global impact today, whileaddressing and shaping thechangingrealities of our future.

Our world faces many challenges such as rising geopolitical tensions, the decline of multilateralism, and the rise of populism and nationalism. We are more connected than ever with digital technologies yet we are also more divided than ever as these tools drive misinformation and disinformation. The COVID-19 pandemic has demonstrated how fragile our global society has become, with a new virus able to have devastating impact in a short period of time. Yet the existential crisis that we face, the climate emergency, promises to have even more dire consequences for humans and our planet.

The pandemic response has also highlighted Waterloos resilience, innovative thinking and leadership. Through education and research, we can help solve some of these big global challenges today and in the future in unconventional ways.

The seismic shifts happening today are an opportunity for us to build on this tradition of innovation and discovery, and design human-centered solutions for a better future. Waterloo was built for change, and we know how to prepare the next generation to lead in the face of social and economic transformations.

Our rich history of bold innovation is making a global impact today, and inspiring our future, as we navigate this period and reimagine a better world.

See the article here:

Addressing global challenges through education, research and innovation | Waterloo News - The Iron Warrior

Like the White Queen in Alice in Wonderland, Republican voters seem capable of believing as many as six impossible things before breakfast. In their looking-glass world, Donald TrumpDonald TrumpFears grow over Russian chemical threat to Ukraine Overnight Defense & National Security Senators grill Biden officials on Ukraine Jussie Smollett gets 150 days in jail after faking hate crime against himself MORE trounced Joe Biden in the 2020 presidential election, the worlds scientists are colluding in a climate change hoax and evil epidemiologists pushed mask mandates to deprive Americans of their liberty, not to protect them from a virus thats killed more than six million people.

Democrats are wondering how they could possibly be losing to a defiantly delusional GOP in party preference matchups. One answer is that midterm elections are always tough on the party in power. Another is that Democrats have been falling into rabbit holes too.

Their illusions are explored in The New Politics of Evasion, a new study by two veteran political analysts, Bill Galston and Elaine Kamarck published by the Progressive Policy Institute. Its a timely and incisive exercise in political reality therapy for President BidenJoe BidenBiden expected to call for nixing normal trade relations with Russia Senate averts shutdown, passes .6B in Ukraine aid GOP senators urge Biden to expedite transfer of airpower, air defense systems to Ukraine MORE and his party, whose public approval has cratered over the past year.

By ignoring defecting swing voters, the authors warn, Democrats could not only take a beating in November but also reopen the door to Trumps return, putting our democracy at risk.

Galston and Kamarck, who served in previous Democratic administrations, dissect three persistent myths that blind their party to todays electoral realities. The first is that people of color are a political monolith welded together by the common experience of discrimination. For decades, party strategists have been predicting that, as their share of the electorate inexorably grows, minorities will combine with white progressive activists to propel Democrats into permanent majority status.

That hasnt happened, for two reasons. First, people of color dont think alike or see themselves as fellow victims of societal oppression. Second, working-class Blacks and Hispanics generally have more moderate views than college-educated and affluent white progressives.

Democrats were shocked in 2020 by Trumps gains among Hispanic voters, and their drift toward Republicans continues. Galston and Kamarck note that Hispanic and Black attitudes diverge across a range of issues, including police reform, critical race theory, foreign policy and governments role in assuring economic opportunity.

They suggest that the Hispanic trajectory in the United States may instead follow that of other immigrants who came here voluntarily. Democrats must consider the possibility that Hispanics will turn out to be the Italians of the 21st century, family-oriented, religious, patriotic, striving to succeed in their adopted country, and supportive of public policies that expand economic opportunity without dictating results.

The second myth is that economics trumps culture. Progressives believe that if only Democrats would champion a truly transformational plan for government action to trammel predatory capitalism and deliver public benefits to working families, voters would tune out the Republicans diversionary cultural war messages and come home to the party of FDR.

But social, cultural and religious values are intrinsically important to U.S. voters of all stripes, whatever their economic circumstances. So simply amping up economic populism isnt going to allay voters qualms about progressive rhetoric on crime, immigration, education, race and gender.

In fact, it works the other way: Democrats will need to embrace cultural moderation if they want to get a hearing on their economic agenda. Even so, working-class voters seem more interested in better jobs and prospects for upward mobility than hand-outs from Washington. Aspiration, not redistribution, seems to matter most to swing voters.

Third is the myth of a progressive ascendancy in the Democratic Party. In fact, the party is about evenly split between self-described liberals and moderates and conservatives. Among U.S. voters generally, Galston and Kamarck note that only 7 percent describe themselves as very liberal and only 9 percent associate themselves with the democratic socialist policies of Sen. Bernie SandersBernie Sanders Sanders calls for end to MLB antitrust exemption Reality therapy for Democrats Former Bernie Sanders press secretary: proposed defense budget includes excessive amount for private contractors MORE (I-Vt.) and the House Squad.

This basic electoral math explains why the lefts base mobilization theory of victory always comes up short. Turnout broke records in 2020, but instead of producing a more progressive electorate, the influx of voters helped Republicans more than Democrats.

In a fascinating discussion of the new structure of U.S. politics, Galston and Kamarck illuminate an extraordinary partisan deadlock. In the nine elections between 1988 and 2020, no candidate has come close to a 10-point victory margin, and five of the past six have been settled by margins of less than 5 percentage points. In five of these elections, the winner failed to secure a majority of the national popular vote"

Until this impasse is broken by a political realignment, swing voters will determine election outcomes. Thats true, the authors note, even though the number of swing states has shrunk dramatically.

Rather than currying favor with progressive activists, Democrats should sharpen their appeal to the persuadable voters in the battleground states of the past two election cycles. They need to replicate Bidens success with college-educated suburbanites, and his modest but significant inroads among white working-class voters. They also need to get a better handle on what working-class Hispanic voters really expect from political leaders, and work to prevent further slippage among blue-collar Black voters.

While leftwing purists may not appreciate it, Galston and Kamarck have done their party a great service by illuminating a pragmatic path toward building durable governing majorities.

This is not their first rodeo. Way back in 1989, they wrote the original Politics of Evasion, which punctured the consoling myths Democrats fell back on to rationalize a long string of presidential defeats. That analysis helped make the case for the New Democrat renovation of the partys agenda and Bill ClintonWilliam (Bill) Jefferson ClintonReality therapy for Democrats LIVE COVERAGE: Biden delivers State of the Union A promise kept: How Biden can come away with a win this SOTU MOREs subsequent success in snapping the Democrats losing streak.

If Democrats want to avoid disaster in November and keep Trump sidelined, theyd be wise to read the sequel.

Will Marshallis president and founder of the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI).

Read more:

Reality therapy for Democrats | TheHill - The Hill

The rise of populism be it in the mantle of a Donald Trump or a Julius Malema is predicated on economic grievance. Trump sought to capture the racial animus, alienation, anti-elitism, and exploitation of the white working class. Malema trades in the dispossession of black people by apartheid and its colonial antecedents specifically focusing on how black people are regarded as inferior, how they have been prevented from owning land in much of South Africa and how skilled jobs were and are, as he asserts reserved for white people.

It matters not that both distort the minutiae of the current reality and engage in the proffering of half-truths fake news, in the parlance of the 21st century as long as there is a festering sore, the diagnostic origin of which can be traced to a history that is strident in its attribution, angry in its manifestation and negligent of any nuanced reading of the past with nary a grasp of what is needed to build instead of break.

The reality is that unless the economy flourishes in order to secure social stability through growth-fostering measures, there will always be someone who will come up with simplistic claims to secure popular political support often with dire consequences.

This is the fertile ground ploughed by populists of the Trump and Malema ilk supported wittingly or unwittingly in South Africas well-heeled corridors by the EFF-adoring Herman Mashabas ActionSA, many guilt-ridden progressives, swathes of xenophobes, elements of the downtrodden armies of the marginalised millions, a significant portion of the lumpenproletariat and the motley bunch of thieves who constitute the ANCs RET faction.

The ANCs inability to deliver a better life for all over some 30 years, after wresting control of the infrastructure it fought so hard to inherit, has played neatly into this populist playbook. Its patent failure to stem the disintegration of social structures and law and order, the encouragement and emergence of factions and fealty, corruption and capture by elites has delivered the all-important element of chaos that favours the birth of mass populist movements.

Hannah Arendt identified a key reason for the success of Hitler and Stalin as the lack of structure within the society, coupled with the perception of a world falling apart. Forty years after Arendts death, populists seem to use exactly the same strategy to mobilise masses: fear and chaos. It should not be lost on observers that a key development in the 21st century is an extremely fluid boundary between populism and extremism.

As Takis Pappas, a PhD graduate from Yale University and a comparative political science researcher and writer affiliated with the University of Helsinki, Finland explains, there are three kinds of parties aggregated under the populist label:

Populism is the negation of political liberalism. It thrives in social, political and economic circumstances where political institutions especially the rule of law and safeguards for minority rights are weak and where polarisation and majoritarian tendencies are strong. Present-day South Africa appears to be tailor-made for the emergence, over time, of this manifestation which has parallels and precedents in a host of countries central and eastern Europe, Brazil, India, Israel and more.

This is precisely why Malema is able to say, during a heated exchange with legal counsel Mark Oppenheimer in the current trial before the equality court: Im going to be president, whether you like it or not I will preside over the affairs of this country, including presiding over you. I think you must start adjusting to that reality. The sooner you do that, the less chest pains you will have when that reality comes.

Remember how Donald Trumps interest in pursuing the presidency vacillated publicly until his expectation-shattering campaign of the 2016 election which gave meaning to his assertion when asked who would support him for the White House: when I walk down the street, those cabbies start yelling out their window The working guy would elect me; they like me.

When emboldened in this way, does the use of racially inflammatory rhetoric open the floodgates to prejudice and encourage members of the public to express deeply held prejudices? The answers lie in recent memory, in Trumps 2016 presidential campaign, which was punctuated by a consistent series of inflammatory statements targeting racial and ethnic minorities and where it was not clearly and strongly condemned by other elite political actors.

It is apposite here to cast ones mind back to 2010, when the ANC dismissed a ruling by a regional high court that uttering or publishing the words of inflammatory songs would amount to hate speech and violate the Constitution put in place after the end of white minority rule. These songs cannot be regarded as hate speech or unconstitutional, then ANC secretary-general Gwede Mantashe told a news conference.

A study in the British Journal of Political Science The Trump Effect: An Experimental Investigation of the Emboldening Effect of Racially Inflammatory Elite Communication by Newman, Merolla, Shah, Lemi, Collingwood and Ramakrishnan posits that the emboldening effect of such rhetoric (Trumps, in this instance, but equally applicable to Malemas utterances) is most pronounced when other elites in the political system tacitly condone such speech.

When other elites stay silent, it potentially signals to those who are prejudiced that the norm environment is shifting and that it is no longer unacceptable to publicly express prejudice. In other words, it gives licence to individuals who harbour prejudice to express it.

Therein lies the rub, and the importance of holding Malema to book lest we pave the way for a populist future that will end badly as it always has throughout history. Never forget that when Benito Mussolini came to power in the wake of World War 1, conditions favoured a new polity centred on nationalism and restoration of Italy to some imagined glory.

Fascism appeared to offer an answer and a shot in the arm to many of the issues faced by both downtrodden Italians and elites: an economic crisis, massive public debt, inflation and unemployment. It also provided safety from the threat of communism that had been established in Russia.

Fascism meant nationalist unity its frontline corps were the Blackshirts in Italy and the Brownshirts in Nazi Germany. They promised a solution a solution that laid the ground for Hitlers final solution.

In South Africa, we have the Redshirts. The naysayers will scoff at the inclusion of Malemas red-clad EFF in this grouping. The tragedy is they do it at their own peril. They would do well to remember that the far-left firebrand stated previously that he would not call for the slaughter of white people at least not for now and when given the opportunity to recant and make clear that he would never call for the slaughter of whites, the Commander-in-Chief of the EFF simply refused I wont do it, he said defiantly.

In 1919, Hitler penned a letter in which he said, the final aim, however, must be the uncompromising removal of the Jews altogether. He, too, never recanted. DM

Related Articles

Original post:

Blackshirts, Brownshirts, Redshirts: The rise and rise... - Daily Maverick

Im tired. Like, really tired. Im finding it hard to get interested in things I used to absolutely adore. For instance, the Winter Olympics, by far the best Olympics, passed without me noticing it much at all. I watched part of a hockey game and some figure skating, but that was it. There was a time when I could watch curling and downhill skiing and speed skating for hours. But now? Not so much.

A lot of people I know report the same kind of feelings. Pandemic fatigue is a real thing, after all. For those of us who always took the pandemic seriously, and who did everything we could to keep ourselves and our loved ones safe, the past two years have been an exhausting grind. Thats what its like living through times like ours: they take a toll.

But there are other dimensions to this kind of tiredness. One long-term crisis is bad enough, but weve actually been living through three of them. And the people we need most to get us through these crises are the ones who are feeling the most burned out.

When we talk about pandemic fatigue, were really talking about two different, overlapping phenomena. The first is the kind of weariness that the day-to-day calculus of pandemic leaves us with. Okay, so you want to go to the grocery store. Will people be wearing masks there? Should you try to go when its not busy? The numbers are down, so its probably alright if youre there with a lot of people. You second-guess yourself, but end up going and its fine. You dont catch it, you dont bring it home to your loved ones, but man, its a lot.

The second is just generally being fed up with life being thrown out of whack. People hate restrictions and mandates, they hate sending kids to school with masks, and they hate thinking and talking about this freaking pandemic all the time. Some people grit their teeth and get through it, because thats how we all stay safe. Thats the tiring way to do it.

Others take a completely different approach. They hold loud protests, they get up in peoples faces during school board meetings, they go out without masks and flash gotcha grins at anyone wearing one, and they form big truck convoys and take over national capitals.

These people arent tired. They seem to have endless energy. And that leads us to crisis number two.

Were in the midst of a long political crisis that has affected democracies all over the world. The rise of stop-at-nothing, ultranationalist, authoritarian right-wing populism is one of the worst threats to liberal democracy since the end of the Second World War, and I dont say that lightly. In this country its been fueled by 30 years of cynical demagogues exploiting racial and cultural grievances, all of which culminated in the Trump administration and the storming of the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

Right now theres a lot of overlap between the sorts of people who cheered on Jan. 6 and the ones who protest pandemic restrictions. You dont believe me? Then explain to me why a rally against masks in schools at the state Capitol in Hartford a few weeks back broke out into a sustained, wholehearted Lets Go, Brandon chant. As the man himself says, cmon, man. We know who they are.

From 2015 to 2020, populist authoritarianism reared its ugly head in this country. We fought it and we won. Barely. If that sounds like some kind of over-dramatization of the situation, I have to ask: do you remember the Trump years? Do you remember the lies, the gaslighting, the abuses of power, the rallies, the cynicism, and everything else?

I admit, Im having trouble hanging on to a lot of it, myself. But it happened, and it burned out a lot of people on politics for good. When exhaustion in the center and on the left allow the Republicans, a party that by all rights should have disqualified itself from ever holding office in this country again, to come back to power this November, we will be reminded.

There is a third crisis behind all of these: the slow-moving but inexorable march of climate change. New England is warming faster than other parts of the country and we feel it. If youre tuned to the seasons like I am, you notice when somethings not right, and there really hasnt been a normal year since 2010. Unlike the pandemic or the rise of right-wing authoritarianism, theres no exit ramp. Its too late to stop climate change; all we can do is mitigate it. Were not even doing a very good job of that.

Whats the future going to be like? How will our civilization change? How do we even plan for this?

Its tiring. Im exhausted. But the pandemic, the Lets Go, Brandon chanters, and the changing climate are all wide awake.

See the original post:

OP-ED | Facing Exhaustion As Serious Threats Persist - CT News Junkie