Category Archives: Populism

Last month, CNN medical analyst Dr. Jonathan Reiner called Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) the most ignorant man in the United States Senate, adding and that says a lot. What Johnson did was oppose vaccination, saying Vaccinated individuals can catch COVID. They can transmit COVID. So whats the point?

The point is we dont know exactly how or why this happens. So it is better to be cautious until we know more.

Many years ago, I worked in the office of Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-N.Y.), a former Harvard professor and probably the least ignorant member of the U.S. Senate. His aides were debating whether the Senate should support U.S. aid to the mujaheddin, resistance fighters who opposed the Soviet takeover of Afghanistan. One staffer said, Those people are ignorant religious radicals. How can we support them?

Sen. Moynihan became indignant. In my office, we do not criticize ignorance, he said. Most people who are ignorant cant help it. They had no opportunity to learn. The senator then paused for thought and added: Militant ignorance is different. Ignorance that is proud of itself, that holds knowledge in contempt that must be condemned.

What we are seeing right now in the debate over COVID is a lot of militant ignorance. The virus is changing in unpredictable ways and, as one expert put it to the New York Times, The guidance has to change when the science changes.

That kind of uncertainty causes people to lose faith in science and challenge expertise. Challenging expertise is an old political tradition in the U.S. Its called populism resentment of elites. In this case, resentment of educated elites, which is the driving force behind right-wing populism. (Left-wing populism is something else resentment of the rich, which also emerges from time to time. See Sen. Bernie SandersBernie SandersAt least 20 states to increase minimum wage starting Saturday Warren Buffett rejects Sanders' request to intervene amid union strike Briahna Joy Gray discusses Harris's declining approval numbers MORE (I-Vt.) for that.)

Back in 1975, according to the Gallup poll, 70 percent of Americans said they had a lot of confidence in science. Last year, that number had slipped to 64 percent. Why? Politics. The percentage of Democrats who expressed confidence in science went up 12 points. But the percentage of Republicans declined by an eye-popping 27 points. In 2021, only 45 percent of Republicans said they had a lot of confidence in science, down from 72 percent in 1975. Think of it: Most Republicans no longer have confidence in scientific knowledge. People start questioning the science, questioning whether or not we really know what were doing questioning, you know, Am I going to have to do this every six months? another medical expert said. The answer is very likely, yes.

That answer is not very popular politically. Which is why scientists like Dr. Anthony FauciAnthony FauciSunday shows preview: Omicron surge continues; anniversary of Jan. 6 attack approaches Study suggests omicron symptoms more mild due to less lung damage Michigan shifts, will follow CDC isolation guidance MORE have become a target for conservatives. As the science changes, his advice changes. Ten-day quarantines used to be recommended. That recommendation has been shortened to five days.

Most voters see lack of certainty in leaders as a weakness. President BidenJoe BidenKentucky governor declares state of emergency after powerful storm Seven most vulnerable governors facing reelection in 2022 At least 20 states to increase minimum wage starting Saturday MORE, for example, is often criticized as a weak leader because he doesnt have the certainty of a Ronald Reagan or a Donald Trump.

Even Trump has run into trouble with his supporters because he has wavered on vaccinations. It used to be the case that Republicans opposed government vaccination mandates. Now they are turning against vaccination itself. One of President TrumpDonald TrumpOne in three Americans say violence against government sometimes justified: poll Seven most vulnerable governors facing reelection in 2022 Sunday shows preview: Omicron surge continues; anniversary of Jan. 6 attack approaches MOREs strongest supporters, Rep. Marjorie Taylor GreeneMarjorie Taylor GreeneGOP efforts to downplay danger of Capitol riot increase The Memo: What now for anti-Trump Republicans? Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene says she's meeting with Trump 'soon' in Florida MORE (R-Ga.), tweeted that she spoke to former President Trump and I have President Trumps permission to tell you all that he is 100 percent AGAINST the mandates, but he still encourages everyone to get the vaccine and booster. That produced boos from some Trump supporters and criticism from far-right figures like Alex Jones who called Trumps words nothing but a raft of dirty lies.

One reason for the partisan divide over COVID is the growing diploma divide in American politics. Voters with college degrees are becoming more Democratic while non-college white voters are becoming more Republican. And Republicans are deeply resentful over what they see as condescension toward them.

A right-wing speaker told a church audience in Oklahoma that what he called the metropolitan elite want to crush you They call you the smelly Walmart people. They have contempt for you.

During a fight over mask mandates, a city commissioner in Enid, Okla., is reported to have told a local audience that America is in a moment when the people who ran things from the beginning mostly white, mostly Christian, mostly male are now having to share control. You dont just get to be the sole solitary voice in terms of what we do here, what we teach here, what we show on television here. You dont get to do it any more. Thats where the fight is.

Many Americans long for certainty in their leaders as a sign of strength. But education even science is not the realm of certainty. Religion is. Which is why religious differences churchgoers versus non-churchgoers have been increasing in the political spectrum alongside differences by education.

Bill Schneider is an emeritus professor at the Schar School of Policy and Government at George Mason University and author of "Standoff: How America Became Ungovernable"(Simon & Schuster).

Go here to see the original:

Republicans, COVID, and the rise of 'militant ignorance' | TheHill - The Hill

From Russia to China, Brazil, France, India and the US, this year is likely to be crucial in deciding the fortunes of a long list of populist strongman leaders, or leadership contenders. The electoral fortunes of a US president have repercussions across the globe and, if Joe Bidens Democrats slip up this year, it will encourage Donald Trumps hopes of a return to the White House.

As 2021 ended with Mr Biden struggling to get his sweeping $1.9trn (1.4trn) social spending bill through Congress, attention was already turning to the November 2022 US mid-term elections. The loss of either chamber of Congress could signal a return to power in 2024 of the Republican Party, now in thrall to Mr Trumpsanti-democratic populism.

A Trump or Trumpian victory will once again call into doubt Americas commitment to the World Health Organisation, Nato and fighting climate change. Much closer to home, France will be electing a new president in 2022. The centrist populist incumbent Emmanuel Macron has not yet announced he will be running for a second term in the spring election, but pundits expect him to do so.

The first vote be held on 10 April. Should no candidate win a majority, a run-off will be held between the top two candidates two weeks later. The polls point to a Macron victory, but the French presidential election is notoriously unpredictable.

Far-right leader Marine Le Pen was seen as Macrons main rival and projected to join him in the second round of the plebiscite. The 53-year-old is sticking to her preferred themes of immigration and security but has sought to soften her partys image since taking over from her openly racist father changing its name from National Front to National Rally.

But she risks being outflanked on the right by a new personality, Eric Zemmour. Mr Zemmour, an outspoken TV and press commentator, is notorious for his provocations on Islam, immigration and women.

And both extreme-right candidates could now be eclipsed by Valrie Pcresse, a centre-right candidate who won a conservative primary in December. A poll also carried out last month placed her as Mr Macrons main rival, with 17 per cent of the vote. Mr Macron leads with 24 per cent. Mr Zemmour and Ms Le Pen each have 14.5 per cent.

In China, President Xi Jinping should have an easier time securing a third term in office at the Chinese Communist Partys National Party Congress in November. There are predictions that this might be the moment when he announces himself to be president for life. This prospect would alarm US allies, which have already seen Americas global primacy and appetite for foreign military interventions fade in the face of Chinas rise and the USs own failed attempts at regime change in the Middle East.

Whether or not Mr Bidens fortunes improve, uncertainty about Americas long-term commitment to Nato will prompt some EU voices to call for the bloc to boost its own defence capability and independence from the US. But post-Brexit, and with Germany showing little desire to build military capacity in proportion to its economic might, the EU looks set to remain a financial and regulatory superpower.

Americas gaze will be increasingly on the western Pacific. It will place greater stock on relations in Asia, as it looks to Japan and other players to help counter the influence of China. But America, Europe and China are not the only ones who will decide how 2022 turns out. Economically unimportant but well-armed states Russia, and North Korea spring to mind are good at geopolitical mischief.

Hopefully, the massing of Russia tanks on Ukraines borders is merely a bluff to dissuade the West and Nato from building any further links with former Soviet states. But it would be unwise to assume Russia president Vladimir Putins threats against Ukraine and attempts to disrupt Western elections and alliances are simply a vindictive game.

While the West fixates on how to protect Ukraine, the Russian despot can profit from this distraction and hatch other schemes. Certainly, criticism of Mr Putins repressive tactics at home are lost in the noise surrounding the threat of conflict over the border.

The poisoning of opponents abroad, and the persecution of Alexei Navalny, the Russian opposition leader, have underlined how any pretence of accountability for Mr Putin and the inner circle of plutocrats running Russia has vanished. In 2021, Mr Putin threw out constitutional restrictions that demanded he step down in 2024. He can now rule until at least 2036 and probably beyond.

Emerging powers such as India will have increasing influence as the world looks to them to help combat disastrous climate change. India will also celebrate its 75th year of independence on 15 August.

The Covid pandemic made the past year very hard for many of its 1.4 billion inhabitants. But next year questions will be asked with even more urgency about the health of its relatively youthful democracy. Opposition leaders may struggle to rein in Narendra Modi, Indias populist and increasingly authoritarian prime minister. Decent local election results in 2022 will encourage him to stand for a third term in 2024.

Latin America has been shaken by severe Covid epidemics, particularly in Mexico, Peru and Brazil. But the extremes of political populism are taking their toll as well. The skill of Chiles incoming left-wing president Gabriel Boric to combat social inequality while pacifying the countrys strong right-wing constituency will serve as a test for moderation and co-operation across the continent.

In October, Brazil will go to the polls. Far-right incumbent leader Jair Bolsonaro, whose presidency has been stained by corruption and a complacent response to Covid-19, is currently well behind his nemesis, leftist ex-president Luiz Incio Lula da Silva. Much of the world, which has watched in horror as Mr Bolsonaro presided over increased deforestation in the Amazon, will be praying for Mr Lula da Silvas victory.

Go here to see the original:

Is a Trump comeback on the cards? Why 2022 will be crucial for the worlds strongman leaders - iNews

2021 was the year Angela Merkel finally left office, after 16 long years as German chancellor

In early December, millions sat in front of their TV screens watching the farewell ceremony in her honour. The ceremony featured an army parade, soldiers marching with torches, and the Bundeswehr band playing some curious East German punk rock.

Some of her admirers reported feeling a sense of gloom as they watched. This is because of what the outgoing chancellor represented for them: continuity, stability and a sense of security. Merkel was the person who, in their eyes, had managed to keep a lid on many of Germanys social and political tensions.

Still, very few Germans including her fans would argue that Merkel leaves the country in good shape. There are complaints about large investment backlogs, neglected public infrastructure and the unresolved challenges of her green-energy transition. She also left her own party, the CDU, in tatters. It suffered a crushing electoral loss back in September under chancellor-candidate Armin Laschet. Merkels crowning achievement seems to be that she managed to stay in power for so long.

This ability to stay in power was not down to her political survival instincts alone. Merkel was propped up by a beleaguered middle class that needed her to fend off the malcontents, the protesters, the anti-liberals and the populists. Particularly after the euro crisis, the refugee crisis and the rise of the right-wing AfD, she managed to rally the forces of the establishment behind her. Anyone who criticised Merkel was accused of populism. Even those who had been sceptical about her at the beginning of her career fell increasingly silent.

Merkel succeeded in carefully crafting an image of herself as a guarantor of the liberal order. In her farewell speech, she played up to this role. She issued a stark warning about the people who believe in conspiracy theories and question facts (a parting swipe at the critics of Germanys harsh Covid measures). She also declared that in a democracy tolerance has its limits, especially when it comes to those who incite hatred.

Despite her nickname, Mutti (mummy), Merkel was never a unifying figure. The more the establishment rallied around her, the more those who were not on side felt left out.

Its worth remembering that Merkels decision not to run for a fifth term came after her very poor election results in 2017. In the final few months of her term, her popularity rose again, as a result of the Covid crisis. But her last act in office was to help push Germany towards compulsory vaccinations an extraordinarily divisive policy.

Now that Merkel is gone, the new government a coalition of the Social Democrats, Free Democrats and Greens is nervously trying to follow in her footsteps. None of these parties represents a majority. In their first act of obedience to mummy, the coalition has taken up her proposal for compulsory vaccinations. It has also banned the unvaccinated from almost all public places. The new chancellor, Olaf Scholz, has clearly taken Merkels warning about the limits of tolerance very seriously.

But there is a problem. As recently as November 2021, the number of unvaccinated adults in Germany was higher than the number of people who voted for Scholz in the federal elections. Some have already called him the chancellor of exclusion.

As 2021 drew to a close, for a second year in a row, restrictions were placed on New Years celebrations and fireworks were banned. Anger is on the rise. Protests against the governments Covid policies have reemerged with a vengeance, and the media are more reluctant to dismiss them than previously. Legal experts and scientists have joined in the opposition, issuing public appeals against compulsory vaccines.

2021 has brought the Merkel era to an end. In 2022, her divisive legacy will be impossible to ignore.

Sabine Beppler-Spahl is spikeds Germany correspondent.

To enquire about republishing spikeds content, a right to reply or to request a correction, please contact the managing editor, Viv Regan.

Read more:

Good riddance to the Merkel era - Spiked

AS if the disreputable state of British elite rule couldnt fall any further in this year of Covid and kleptocracy, the prosecution of Ghislaine Maxwell shines a light on a whole strata of society, a jet-set of sex traffickers rubbing shoulders with celebrities and royalty. But if there is relief that someone has been prosecuted in this sordid affair that feeling must be over-ridden by the lingering thought that shes just a patsy.

As Maxwell faces the clink (found guilty on five of six charges of sexual trafficking) its worth recalling the Met decided to take no further action over allegations involving her, Epstein and the Prince formerly known as Randy Andy. This was the same police who wouldnt look into Downing Street parties and have hardly covered themselves in glory in the aftermath of the Sarah Everard murder. The overwhelming impression watching Maxwells conviction is that of justice being served but an elite acting with impunity. That Prince Andrew, the ninth in line to the throne is one degree away from a convicted paedophile, is the stuff of the wildest conspiracies, but in 2021/2022 it is a simple fact.

Such has public life warped that Andrew is now the subject of a frantic PR campaign; plus efforts of the rest of the monarchy to create a firewall between him and themselves; amid the earnest procrastination of the fleet of royal correspondents employed by the state and public broadcasters.

READ MORE:Petition to have Tony Blair stripped of his knighthood gathers pace

On Thursday Sabastian Payne, the Financial Timess Whitehall Editor announced that the Prime Minister was to be cleared of breaking any rules about his flat refurbishment. The idea that Johnson would be cleared of breaking the Ministerial Code by an internal Whitehall inquiry surprised nobody at all, the code has been devalued to the point of irrelevance for years. A pal of Johnsons letting him off the hook for whatever he was told to let him off the hook is not news. But if the politicians investigate each other and the police investigate themselves all this marking your own homework has a cost.

THE putrid edifice of Broken Britain that has been exposed through the pandemic staggers on. But if the powerful are beyond recourse the damage to whats left of their credibility is further undermined. The whole super-structure of British rule is so damaged and broken by years of this process that it will collapse at the first opportunity.

As if knowing this, the language has changed. Gone are notions of unity and alliance, gone is Johnsons awful Awesome Foursome or Camerons Family of Nations now Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales are referred to as territories or principalities. The pandemic has unleashed a new wave of British nationalism and a new language of vaccine-colonialism.

As Rory Scothorne writes in The New Statesman: In Scotland (as well as Wales and Northern Ireland) another Covid-19 ritual is being performed. Nicola Sturgeons devolved Scottish Government has responded to the Omicron variant by strengthening its guidance and restrictions so that they are stricter than those in England, and it has done so with a finger of blame pointed south.

Announcing new guidance for the public and businesses on December 14, Sturgeon suggested that our public health response is curtailed by lack of finance. Without further funding from the UK Treasury, there were insufficient resources to support the hospitality sector through a tougher pandemic approach.

The pandemic shows both the strength and weakness of the devolved settlements which, more than ever, are revealed to be a process not an event.

READ MORE:Judge slaps down attempt to halt Prince Andrew's sexual assault case

The idea of coachloads of clubbers heading to England for Hogmanay was being punted last week by Simon Johnson (Scottish political editor at the Telegraph) and The Sun, as the English media tried valiantly to stem the flow of Johnsons waning reign of error.

But this media plot narrative of England as a sort of Bacchanalian Honeypot for Jocks weary of Nicolas Nanny State was rather undermined by reality.

The concept of hordes of tartan revellers swarming irresistibly over the border to the petri-dish of sado-populism was just a media hallucination.

THE hallucination stems from a populist understanding that the public are somehow seething about the terrible restrictions we endure, rather than quite happy with the public health measures we share. The language is important. In all of this the devolved nations must be portrayed as outliers, out of step and endlessly peripheral, only maintained by the generosity of the central authority.

If the principalities are under attack, so too are the experts. The pandemic politics have grown out of the Brexit Saga and one of the ongoing populist memes is the idea of a problem with experts.

Last week saw Rees-Mogg announce that in response to the pandemic We should listen to the people, not the experts like we did with Brexit. Its this psychosis which has left millions of people exposed to the virus in the past few weeks.

Its this weird populism which as united right wing authoritarians with self-styled libertarians and led Conservative MP Joyce Morrissey to rail against a public health socialist state.

AND so it goes, a false libertarianism paving the way for a new authoritarianism. Just as the war against the experts continues unabated so too does the Brexit obsession with war. As Richard Seymour points out.

READ MORE:BBC under renewed fire after interview with Ghislaine Maxwell's brother

We have been treated to military metaphors throughout the pandemic, from Boris Johnsons great national effort to fight Covid to Macrons declaration of war against the plague.

As Susan Sontag has pointed out, the war metaphor fosters imprudent zeal and sacrifice in a society that otherwise restricts the scope and credibility of appeals to ethical principle, and in which realism demands that we calibrate our actions with an eye to self-interest and profitability.

BRITAIN, a construct that barely exists, is at war with itself, it is at war with its people; its constituent parts; its judiciary; its scientists and experts; in fact the only people it seems NOT to be at war with are the politicians themselves.

The war is carried out across the airwaves and timelines by the phantasms of freedom and liberty while the warmongers create more and more the conditions for grinding poverty and exclusion. The war will only be over when Britain defeats itself and implodes into the atoms of its own absurdity.

Read the original here:

Mike Small: Britain is at war with itself and it will not end until it's defeated - The National

Though at times it can feel hard to believe especially in recent weeks, perhaps this pandemic will not last for ever. With more than 5 million dead and huge economic and social costs, its toll has been immense, and unnecessarily so. Secrecy in China, complacency in Europe, reckless and callous rightwing populism in the US and Brazil, and the inequity in vaccine distribution have all contributed.

Yet if we learn its lessons, we will be better prepared next time. For there will be a next time. Covid is not a once-in-a-century crisis an idea encouraged by its arrival 101 years after the last major pandemic, the Spanish flu, which killed at least 50 million. The mega-flu outbreak that many experts had seen as the next great threat is no less likely to arrive because Covid got here first. A pandemic of similar scale is likely within the next six decades, and could happen at any point in that timespan, according to research published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) in August; others have put the risk of a comparable crisis within the next decade at around one in four. And as Prof Dame Sarah Gilbert, the creator of the Oxford/AstraZeneca jab, warned recently: The next one could be worse. It could be more contagious, or more lethal, or both.

The price we pay then will depend on what we do now, using Covids lessons. We have seen international scientific collaboration, incredible dedication by researchers and healthcare staff, and the ability and willingness of local and national communities to pull together. Richer nations will be less likely to take health security for granted. Covid-19 has also shown that the right decisions at the right time can make a profound difference. With a dozen direct flights from Wuhan each week, Taiwan was heavily exposed to risk. But, driven by the experience of the 2002-03 Sars epidemic, it rapidly introduced health screening for arrivals, border controls, effective contact tracing and mask-wearing, and gave its citizens clear and consistent messages. Fewer than 900 of its 22 million-strong population have died.

Yet the global response has too often looked like a triumph of science and a failure of politics. The wishful thinking seen in the first wave has been repeated again and again. And the way we live is increasing the risks of another major pandemic. The aforementioned research published in August in PNAS estimated that the probability of novel disease outbreaks will grow threefold in the next few decades. International trade and travel allow diseases to spread far more quickly. Some scientists argue that we have already entered another great pandemic: a wave of antimicrobial resistance that could see tens of millions die from currently treatable diseases, coming gradually, but ultimately proving far more punishing than the sudden Covid crisis. The overuse of antibiotics to treat humans and livestock is endangering us all.

Both the frequency and severity of spillover events, where diseases jump from animals to humans, have increased as we encroach on and destroy animal habitats. Zoonotic diseases, transmitted from animals, represent around three-quarters of newly emerging diseases. And research suggests that, as many species become extinct, those that thrive are more likely to be ones known to host pathogens dangerous to humans. Though all this is frequently presented as a developing-world issue, the global north is responsible too. Deforestation is often driven by the cultivation of crops for export. The focus on the perils of bush meat and wet markets has not been matched by attention to the risks posed by intensive, industrialised farming. Humans will come into even closer contact with nature as global heating reduces available land, and will be pushed into denser habitation and forced to move en masse. Existing diseases such as chikungunya may spread, as warmer temperatures allow their insect carriers to move into new areas.

Covid would have been far worse without the pandemic preparations that countries had been making for years, however inadequate they proved. Many of the proposals now are essentially for more (or a better version) of the same, focusing on data collection and analysis, improvements to public health communication and exploratory work that could accelerate the development of vaccines and treatments. Above all, experts warn that there needs to be a massive expansion of surveillance to detect novel pathogens.

An expert panel convened by the G20 has called for a doubling of international financing to tackle major weaknesses in surveillance and other pandemic preparedness requirements, to $15bn a year. The price tag is tiny set beside the cost of Covid, but many fear that even now our leaders are reluctant to spend enough.

Specific preparations to fend off or tackle another pandemic could mean everything from better protective gear for abattoir workers to rethinking the ventilation requirements of buildings. But protecting ourselves also requires far more fundamental reassessments. Beyond addressing the climate crisis, it means prioritising public health and acting on what the pandemic has demonstrated so graphically: that inequality both within and between nations kills; and it kills mostly, but not solely, the poor. Covid (and especially the Omicron variant) has shown that we cannot isolate ourselves from the physical or economic effects of disease elsewhere. By hogging vaccines and opposing patent waivers, wealthier nations have imperilled their own citizens too. They should think again, and make amends by helping to improve regional manufacturing capacity for tests, vaccines and treatments. Since global solutions are needed, it is positive that the World Health Assembly has agreed that work should begin on a pandemic accord covering prevention, preparedness and response, even if its parameters fall short of the tougher treaty that many hoped for. Finally, we must address questions of trust, and tackle the fissures in our societies in many ways deepened by Covid.

The challenge is truly daunting. But so is the alternative: What we are going through is also a crisis of meanings, Elif Shafak has written. Do we want to go back to the way things were before the pandemic? Was that really normal? The risk is to our bodily health as well as our wellbeing in the broader sense that Shafak describes. Covid has reminded us that disease is a social as well as a physical phenomenon, produced and shaped by the ways we live. Will we do what is needed to protect ourselves?

Read the original:

The Guardian view on the next pandemic: can we learn Covids lessons? - The Guardian

A tsunami of Omicron and Delta Covid-19 cases will pile pressure on health systems already being stretched to their limits, the World Health Organization warned on Wednesday.

The WHO said the Delta and Omicron variants of concern were twin threats that were driving new case numbers to record highs, leading to spikes in hospitalisations and deaths.

The WHO said new global cases had risen by 11 percent last week, while the United States and France both registered record daily case numbers on Wednesday.

I am highly concerned that Omicron, being more transmissible, circulating at the same time as Delta, is leading to a tsunami of cases, WHO chief Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus told a press conference.

This is and will continue to put immense pressure on exhausted health workers, and health systems on the brink of collapse.

He said the pressure on health systems was not only due to new coronavirus patients, but also large numbers of health workers falling ill with Covid.

Moral shame

The WHO reflected on the fight against Covid-19 in 2021 and hoped that next year would see an end to the acute stage of the pandemic but warned that it would rest on greater vaccine equity.

The WHO wanted 40 percent of the population in every country fully vaccinated by the end of the year and has a target of 70 percent coverage by the middle of 2022.

Tedros announced that 92 of the WHOs 194 member states were going to miss the 40 percent target.

This is due to a combination of limited supply going to low-income countries for most of the year and then subsequent vaccines arriving close to expiry and without key parts like the syringes, he said.

Its not only a moral shame, it cost lives and provided the virus with opportunities to circulate unchecked and mutate. In the year ahead, I call for leaders of government and industry to walk the talk on vaccine equity.

While 2021 has been hard, I ask everyone to make a New Years resolution to get behind the campaign to vaccinate 70 percent by the middle of 2022.

Misinformation and populism

Tedros slammed the attitude of richer countries accusing them of hogging the weapons to combat Covid-19 and leaving the back door open for the virus.

Populism, narrow nationalism and hoarding of health tools, including masks, therapeutics, diagnostics and vaccines, by a small number of countries, undermined equity, and created the ideal conditions for the emergence of new variants, he said.

Meanwhile disinformation had been a constant distraction in 2021, hampering efforts to beat the pandemic.

In the huge waves of cases currently seen in Europe and in many countries around the world, misinformation which has driven vaccine hesitancy is now translating to the unvaccinated disproportionally dying, he said.

Tedros lamented that while there were 1.8 million recorded deaths in 2020, there were 3.5 million in 2021 and the true number would be much higher.

Originally posted here:

WHO worried for health systems over Covid cases 'tsunami' - Expatica Switzerland

Published: 1/1/2022 10:30:45 PM

Modified: 1/1/2022 10:30:06 PM

Twenty years ago, Nancy and I lived next door to a psychiatrist for several months. He specialized in treating people who suffered from writers block. I didnt need his help at the time, but recently Ive wished I could seek his advice.

If I had stretched out on his couch to spin out a tale about whats kept me from writing lately, Id probably have blurted out something about HB 2, the New Hampshire budget bill signed by Gov. Chris Sununu in June. That bill did its confusing best, among other things, to wangle more public funds for private schools in the name of freedom of choice, to restrict abortions, and to control the public school curriculum. HB 2, I might have sobbed, made me doubt the efficacy of the postcards Nancy and I write, urging people to vote for folks who want to keep our democracy alive.

But Ive begun to regain confidence in the postcards and more. We can support local and state political candidates, organizers and their organizations all committed to defending our democracy. And I can come up with a column now and then.

Its hard to say what exactly made possible this restoration of confidence and hope. My best guess is a film and an essay, taken together. The film, Tango Shalom, tells the story of a rabbi who, despite a religious rule that prohibits his touching a woman other than his wife, enters a tango contest as the partner of a beautiful, skilled tango dancer after seeking advice from religious leaders in his own faith and a Muslim, a Catholic and a Hindu.

The essay by Thomas Edsall, How to Tell When Your Country is Past the Point of No Return, was in the Dec. 15 New York Times. It was recommended by a journalist friend who has long sought to correct what I suspect he takes to be my fuzzy-minded optimism. As the essays title suggests, Edsall is a man inclined to face up to grim realities.

He summarizes the views of several knowledgeable observers who believe its possible our electoral system has come to the point at which a return to traditional democratic norms will be extremely difficult, if not impossible. He reviews scholarship that claims autocratic populism can reduce our democratic rights so gradually we wont realize the danger until its too late to stop the destruction of our democracy. He quotes from a Washington Post piece ominously titled 18 Steps to a Democratic Breakdown, in which Risa Brooks and Erica De Bruin warn of a comparatively quiet but steady subversion, rather than a violent coup or insurrection against a sitting president that Americans today have to fear most.

Perhaps Edsalls most chilling statement is in his summary of the predicament our two-party system faces: Democracy meaning equal representation of all citizens and, crucially, majority rule has, in fact, become the enemy of the contemporary Republican Party.

A CNN survey that finds more Republicans than Democrats believe American democracy is under attack 75% versus 46% leads Edsall to his own pessimistic conclusion. He believes the high level of anxiety in both parties is dangerous, partly because it masks the true aim of Americas contemporary right-wing movement, the restoration and preservation of white hegemony. It is not beyond imagining that Republicans could be prepared, fueled by a mix of fear and provocation, to push the nation over the brink.

Edsall uses two phrases in this conclusion that call to mind insights from Tango Shalom: true aim and beyond imagining. You would not know from Edsalls analysis of scholarship and journalism about the threat to American democracy that much Republican anxiety is based on lies, not just the one Big Lie about Trumps victory in the 2020 election, but many lies. The word true appears just once in Edsalls essay, in his conclusion.

Truth, and the trust truth makes possible, are central issues in Orthodox Rabbi Moshe Yehudas high-risk tango challenge in the film, and his imagining is important to finding a way to use his dancing skill to win a prize that can save the school where he teaches. Commitments to both truth and imagination are implicit in what all the religious leaders seem to be advising the rabbi when he consults them. Yehudas rabbi advises him to pray and await a message. The Catholic encourages him to ask himself how he can achieve his goal without sacrificing his sacred beliefs and later urges him to seek help from others. The Muslim advises him to be aware of the time in which he is living and to consider the possibility that there may be no reason to touch a woman as he dances the tango. And the Hindu tells him difficult problems are good because their solutions are fun. He gives the rabbi a balloon, which turns out to be crucial to his performance of the tango.

The lively, colorful, multicultural world of Brooklyn portrayed in Tango Shalom could hardly be more different from the stark version of the American political ecosystem feared by the scholars and journalists reviewed by Edsall in his essay. Unlike this divided, mutually judgmental world, the Brooklyn of Tango Shalom is a place where all four of the religious leaders believe Moshe Yehuda when he speaks of the complicated moral problem he faces. They respect his religious faith, and they accept the solution he finds when he dances the tango. The film begins slowly, feeling fragmented at first. It is quirky and builds off stereotypes. But the writers and director of Tango Shalom have imagined a world in which differing religious beliefs dont have to divide people. Its a world in which democracy can survive because we trust each other enough to encourage fair voting practices and allow teaching about problems and failures we need to overcome if we are to build a more just society.

Bill Nichols lives in West Lebanon. He can be reached at Nichols@Denison.edu.

See the original post here:

Column: Film inspires a glimmer of hope that defenders of democracy can win the day - Valley News

President Joe Biden-led Summit for Democracy was held on December 9-10 in a virtual format. As one of the flourishing democracies, Taiwan was seen in attendance, represented by Audrey Tang, Taiwans digital minister, and Bi-khim Hsiao, Taiwans representative to the United States. The summit was driven by the idea that in the face of populism, authoritarianism, and other forms of non-democratic systems looming large, it is critical to keep the democratic flock together.

The salience of this summit lies in a deeper understanding on the part of the Biden administration that democracy is not just a form of government, it is a goal in itself, a value that must be cherished, preserved and celebrated. It is this vision of democracy as a norm that has seemingly rattled authoritarian countries. That said, unlike other political systems, democracy is also a way of life a work in progress that needs sustained attention and careful nurturing to make it more resilient.

Ideas like these are consistently echoed in Taiwans policy circles. For instance, during the 2021 Open Parliament Forum held in Taiwan, President Tsai Ing-wen reiterated Taiwans commitment to work with liberal democracies for forging an alliance to bolster collective democratic resilience and realise open governance.

These goals were highlighted during this years Yushan Forum, where Vice President Lai Ching-te articulated the three principal priorities that would shape Taiwans external cooperation in the post-pandemic world recovering from the pandemic, restoring the economy, and safeguarding democracy. These goals are not only in sync with global priorities but also complement the objectives set forth in Taiwans New Southbound Policy (NSP), launched in 2016 to bring Asia closer to Taiwan and vice-versa. The NSP is aimed to be a pivotal tool to engage like-minded democracies in the region.

Focusing on recovery (post-pandemic), revival (economy), and safeguarding (democracy) may help find a sustainable way in establishing a development-oriented regional engagement framework. The post-pandemic world would be more invested in some of these areas for example, health diplomacy and collaboration in the medical sector, climate change mitigation, and developing sustainable and resilient supply chains. Taiwan is already proving its efficacy as a viable platform for the semiconductor industry. The US and its friends in the region, particularly India, Japan and Australia, have been proactively exploring possibilities of creating resilient supply chain mechanisms. With its technological knowhow, and shared interests and concerns, Taiwan fits perfectly in this agenda. Greater interactions between Taiwan and EU on the technology cooperation front, stimulated by the latters renewed interest in the Indo-Pacific region, makes Taiwan a desired partner of fellow democracies.

Despite their apparent flaws and criticisms, democracies have fared much better than others in dealing with the pandemic. The world woke up to the perils of authoritarianism during the pandemic, which has also made the world realise the virtues of a democratic system.

However, political resilience needs to be complemented by economic and social resilience. Greater consultations and cooperation amongst democracies are needed to restore economic stability in the post-pandemic world. Post-pandemic regional economic recovery has to be tackled collectively as success hinges on sustained corrective steps of regional nature. As an industrialised democracy, Taiwan could play an important role, especially since countries are trying to reduce dependence on China and establish supply chain resilience. One big lesson the Covid-19 pandemic has taught us is that nobody is safe until everybody is safe.

During the pandemic, Taiwan elucidated the resilient nature of its foreign policy. In the early days of the pandemic, Taiwan, with its exceptionally low number of cases, reached out to friends. As part of its health diplomacy, Taiwan donated surgical face masks, personal protective equipment (PPE) kits, oxygen cylinders and concentrators to Covid-affected countries.

Taiwan, however, cannot afford to take its eyes off the challenges posed to democracies by authoritarianism. It is important for liberal democracies to acknowledge that they are facing similar challenges and view Taiwan as an indispensable partner. Deft diplomacy is in order since transnational challenges demand joint efforts by liberal democracies.

This column first appeared in the print edition on December 31, 2021 under the title Democracys work in progress. Hsiao, chairman, Taiwan-Asia Exchange Foundation and Adjunct Research Fellow, Institute of Sociology, Academia Sinica, is currently senior advisor to the President of Taiwan; Hashmi is a visiting fellow at Taiwan-Asia Exchange Foundation

View post:

Taiwan: An important ally in the battle against authoritarianism - The Indian Express

Change is a disruptive force requiring the metaphorical wrecking ball. Questioning the establishment, the managerial elite, is absolutely necessary to keep powers in check and those operating accountable. It is only through the vigor of populism that America can utilize fuller political participation and awareness.

Populism in the U.S. echoes back to 1892 but is now a significant part of modern politics. It does not adhere to a specific set of values, although it tends to manifest on the right. Populism, the rhetoric of the people, calls upon the disregarded masses to stand and fight for their worth by restoring the Founders vision of our institutions.

Political communications professor at the College of Charleston Michael J. Lee presents a provocative interpretation of populism through his essay The Populist Chameleon. His stance is contemptuous of populism while acknowledging the incredible power behind it.

The paradox of populism lies in its restorative thinking of an idealized history.

Simply put there is constantly a war going on between the two parties for the populist vote, according to the late Republican strategist Lee Atwater. Where does this populist vote manifest in this tug-of-war? Atwater believes it to be exclusively liberal or conservative, but also contextually based, making it rather hard to truly define.

Historian and Georgetown professor Michael Kazin refers to populism as a language whose speakers conceive of ordinary people as a noble assemblage not bounded narrowly by class; view their elite opponents as self-serving and undemocratic; and seek to mobilise the former against the latter. Kazins interpretation sounds very familiar to the ideals of the 2016 platforms of Sen. Bernie Sanders and former President Donald J. Trump.

At the core of populism lies the virtue of the Founders vision with a heavy distrust of its current form. The paradox of populism lies in its restorative thinking of an idealized history. Trumps slogan alone, Make America Great Again, demonstrates the aforementioned concept.

This American identity is but one facet of the populist demand second to the revitalization of our institutions.

The trouble with this restorative logic is the narrowcasting of an ideal time. The 1950s may have been good for some, but certainly not for all, as Jim Crow was still alive and present. However, there is something to be said of those values emblematic of that era almost as if they are central to the American identity. Religious faith, family and patriotism were at the forefront.

The 1950s postwar boom granted the Golden Age of American Capitalism and a thriving, middle-class with a suburban boom. Hollywood depicted wholesome traditional ideals through sitcoms like Leave It To Beaver, The Honeymooners and I Love Lucy. Actors such as John Wayne, Marlon Brando and Marilyn Monroe were hailed as pop-culture gods. Elvis Presley, Johnny Cash and Sam Cooke, among many, paved the way for the American brand of music. This American identity is but one facet of the populist demand second to the revitalization of our institutions.

In The Populist Chameleon, political organizer and writer Harry Boyte viewed populism as the conviction that an elite has dishonored a historically, culturally, or geographically constituted people, its memories, origins, common territory, ways of life. Atwater and Boyte believe populism is more of a right-wing occurrence, which seems accurate as members tend to be in the majoritarian culture, unlike manifestations on the left, who tend to be reflective of the minority. Boytes acknowledgment of culture and history scripts Trumps 2016 slogan accurately. Conservative America desires its preservation and respect for its heritage.

The groups that adhere to populism may be more important than the values themselves. The people provide the collective power. These groups are the ordinary, hard-working, common folk pitted against a common enemy that is economically and culturally distant.

The enemy is to be big in nature, akin to words like the system and the establishment, reflecting an impurity of the Founders conception. Idyllic demands result in political language of the non-negotiable or compromise. Drain the swamp, a popular metaphor of modern conservatives, is indicative of this mindset. Fundamentalist logic can garner support among the more passionate and even dissident, allowing unsung voices and ideas to be heard.

At another angle, Atwater sees populism as a narrative of victimization and redemption. The sacred people, betrayed by their own, seek redemption for their nation through a moral purging of governance. Populism, here, sounds more apocalyptic, although the general idea appears to be exemplified by the modern right. Trumps populism viewed institutions, including the government, as morally bankrupt and deviating from the ideals of America. In contrast, left-wing populism focuses on corporate wealth, the billionaire class and the inherent horrors of capitalism onto its disenfranchised class of Americans.

Both sides of the political spectrum adhere to a common enemy the elite.

Populists pit their audience, the us group, against a relatively abstract other group.

The Foreign Policy Research Institute analyzed quotes from both Sanders and Trump to demonstrate perceived populist rhetoric. Populists pit their audience, the us group, against a relatively abstract other group. Then, they press on popular demands which are general mantras on policy issues.

Sanders was quoted: I dont believe in special treatment for the top one percent, but I do believe in equal treatment for African Americans who are right to proclaim the moral principle that black lives matter. In this statement, Sanders forms a divide through the special treatment of the wealthy and unequal treatment of the Black community providing an us group based on economics and race while signifying a popular demand.

Trump was quoted: Under Hillary Clinton, its the powerful protecting the powerful. Politicians defending politicians. Insiders fighting for insiders. I am fighting for you. The government will work for citizens once again. The era of division will be replaced with a future of unity. Trump presses on a broken system brokered by the powerful elite class, strengthening the us group against a corrupt government.

The language of populism is disparaging politics against a concentrated power between the citizens and what is said to be the elite ruling class.

Both quotes from each politician consider the people, as well as the proclaimed enemy and their desired pursuit an idealized democracy. Both also share the same enemy, the system, but in different lights.

The language of populism is disparaging politics against a concentrated power between the citizens and what is said to be the elite ruling class. Populists frame the people against elites while providing a wealth of power through moral necessity, patriotism and the fear of a nation on the brink of ruin.

In the end, populists do not wish to dismantle the existing system they wish to fix it through the restoration or purification of our institutions. Retaining our history and culture should not be a left or right issue, but it is the populists that fervently defend its preservation and respect.

Original post:

The Populist Persuasion: Talking Action Through the Americanism Credo - Fordham Observer

Speaking on Latvian Radio's"Krustpunkta" (Crossroads) show, Levits said that one of the biggest threats to Latvia's democracy is populism.

"And we see what happens when populists are elected to parliament.Not only in Latvia, but elsewhere.They collapse.They are not capable of meaningful politics. And simply wasting your voice and creating difficulties for the parliament and the state for the next four years is not very responsible, said Levits.

In his opinion, this is one of the reasons why it is difficult to develop highquality long-term policy in Latvia.

The president therefore urged voters to evaluate party proposals, promises and programs next year before voting, to see if they were populist in nature or not.

At the same time, looking at recent history, Levits pointed out that since 1993, 10-20% of voters have voted for thepopulist partiesin every election."My prediction is that populists will not be more successful than before," said the president.

Select text and press Ctrl+Enter to send a suggested correction to the editor

Select text and press Report a mistake to send a suggested correction to the editor

Tell us about a mistake

Here is the original post:

President urges voters to be on guard against populism ahead of Saeima elections - Eng.Lsm.lv