The world was stunned when the Tatmadaw, Myanmars military, deposed popular civilian leader Aung San Suu Kyi in a coup on January 21, 2021. As the opposition protests against the coup led to a violent retaliation by the military and the country dissolved into civil war, the international community watched with concern. Nations condemned the military juntas actions, piled sanctions onto top military officials, and crossed their fingers. But the situation has continued to worsen, and now more than two years later, the country is in an all out civil war with no end in sight.

Despite Myanmars continuing humanitarian crisis and democratic disintegration, the conflict has lost the attention of the international community, particularly in the West. While this may at first seem like another tragic tale of affluent and powerful nations refusing to step in and help restore justice in less developed countries, the true picture is much more complicated. Substantial intervention by the US and other Western nations is highly unlikely, given the lack of economic potential in Myanmar and the loss of faith in the nations democratic leadership. Moreover, intervention by Western powers may arguably be unwise due to Myanmars deep-rooted national military culture as well as China and Russias vested interests in Myanmar, both making the country a dangerous boat to rock.

Myanmars military has securely held power since 1962. There was a brief period of republican government after Myanmarsthen called Burmasindependence in 1948, but that period abruptly ended with a military coup. For the following decades, the military tightly controlled Myanmar with an isolationist foreign policy and a tight grip on the economy. Because of this isolationist foreign policy, foreign firms were not incentivized to invest in Myanmar. The military junta instituted the infamous Burmese Way to Socialism an ideology that resulted in unprecedented economic devastation and Myanmars near-total isolation from the international community. Myanmar was isolated economically by the juntas increasing restrictions on foreign aid, nationalization of key industries, and tight control of foreign trade. Ideologically, the junta closed off Myanmar from the West by removing English education from primary schools, clamping down on visas to and from the West, and instituting harsh press censorship.

Myanmars economic model changed after the Saffron Revolution protests, in which citizens protested the military junta government because of fuel price hikes. In response to the protests and international pressure, the Tatmadaw began to loosen its grip on power. This loosening of the reigns continued for the next few years, and in 2011, the military junta officially dissolved and a military-dominated citizen parliament was created. The parliament engaged in reforms such as decreasing media censorship and economic regulations, which encouraged international investment. Foreign countries started to invest in Myanmar as the country looked to be entering into a new, more modern stage of development. In 2019, Myanmars GDP had grown to nearly double what it was in 2008, and the countrys poverty rate declined from 48 percent in 2005 to 25 percent in 2017.

But since international investment in Myanmar only started to ramp up in 2011, and that investment was not substantial for most countries, few nations have deep economic ties with Myanmar. This lack of foreign investment is one reason many countries are not highly concerned with the instability in Myanmar, since their companies and profits are not on the line.

Also during this period of loosening, the call for democracy was strengthening in Myanmar. This movement was led by Aung San Suu Kyi, an activist whose fame entered the spotlight in the 1980s thanks to her democracy campaign in Myanmar. The campaign culminated in a 2015 election in which the citizens of Myanmar voted for Suu Kyi by wide margins to run the country. The international community was ecstatic about Myanmars democratic transition, and hopes were high for the burgeoning democracy.

Countries around the world then had their hopes dashed when the military embarked on a genocide campaign against the Rohingya Muslim population in Myanmarand Aung San Suu Kyi defended the killings. Many lost faith in her leadership, and this marked the beginning of the Wests re-distancing from Myanmar. The moderate foreign investment that had just begun in 2011 was quickly reversed. The violence against the Rohingya population made foreign investors nervous, and many pulled out their already-meager investments. Along with the loss of faith in Suu Kyi, the divestment in Myanmar led many countries to distance themselves from Myanmar diplomatically.

Despite the violence being carried out against citizens in Myanmar under Suu Kyis presidency and her declining international popularity, Aung San Suu Kyi remained popular among the Buddhist majority in Myanmar. As a result, Suu Kyi and her National League for Democracy (NLD) party won the December 2020 elections by a landslide. The military had backed the opposition party, so they claimed that the election was fraudulent and demanded a rerun of the vote. When the election commissions proceeded to deny their claims of fraud, the military carried out a coup against Aung San Suu Kyi and other NLD leaders in February 2021, piling on accusations of corruption against Aung San Suu Kyi that could amount to 100 years in prison. But the citizens of Myanmar were not content to renounce their democratic progress without a fight. Opposition forces reacted to the coup with acts of civil disobedience, such as banging pots and boycotting military-supported companies, ultimately transitioning into mass protests.

The military has reacted violently to the protests with rubber bullets, water cannons, and fire directed at protesters. But the opposition movement did not acquiesce, so the civil war still rages on. The militarys brutal tactics include shooting live ammunition into homes and protesters, razing entire villages, and arresting over 8,000 suspected opposition forces. The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) reports that at least 1,500 people have been killed, but this is likely a grave underestimate.

Beyond the suffering caused by direct violence, Myanmar citizens are victims of a shrinking economy, a collapsed healthcare system, and skyrocketing poverty rates: millions of people in Myanmar have faced serious hunger crises, with poverty levels expected to double in 2022. CFR writer Joshua Kurlantzick explains that because of the coup, Myanmar has become a failing state. While some of this damage has been caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, the civil war has greatly exacerbated the deteriorating living conditions of these citizens.

The international communitys response to the coup has been, on the whole, underwhelming. The Biden Administration has sanctioned military officials and companies, condemned human rights abuses, and pressured the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) to put more pressure on the military junta. But the administration could strengthen their support by sanctioning Myanmars oil and gas revenues, persuading other countries to stop supporting the junta, and increasing aid to the opposition movement. The UN has similarly come out with statements against the coup and the militarys violent acts but has hesitated to directly intervene in Myanmar.

Some of the few countries that have remained highly involved in Myanmar are China and Russia, which are close allies of Myanmars military junta. Due to China and Myanmars close geographic proximity, China has been able to exert significant economic and diplomatic influence over Myanmar. In fact, China is the most supportive ally of Myanmar and its largest trading partner because of their extensive infrastructure and energy projects as part of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). Therefore, China has a vested interest in preventing violence and instability in Myanmar by keeping the junta in power, both because of its geographic proximity and Chinas economic interests in the county. Some military leaders in Myanmar are wary of losing power to Chinese influence, but with the Wests refusal to accept junta leadership, military leaders are forced to grow closer to China.

Russia is also an increasingly strong ally of the military junta. They did not support an arms embargo on Myanmar and have not condemned the coup. In fact, Russia has even continued arms sales to Myanmar during the coup period. In return, Myanmar has wholeheartedly backed Russias invasion of Ukraine. Russia needs strong allies right now, given the backlash they face over the war, so they have a clear interest in keeping the military in power.

China and Russias vested interest in keeping the junta in power in Myanmar make intervention on the side of the opposition a formidable task. Whats more, although the international community was optimistic about Myanmars democratic transition, the military never really lost its hold on power in Myanmar. Even when the parliamentary democracy was nominally in control, the Tatmadaw still maintained control over foreign relations, domestic security, and many other policies. The military also has significant holdings in major national companies, so their control extends far into both the economic and political spheres.

That being said, the strength of the military junta is currently being questioned given their struggle to crush the opposition movement and their lack of recognition internationally, as both the UN and ASEAN have refused to recognize the junta as the official government of Myanmar. But regardless, the military is so entrenched in Myanmars systems and bent on holding power that replacing them with a democratic government is a task no nation wants to take on.

As such, the status quo of limited international intervention will likely remain. Western nations may continue to send hopes, prayers, and sanctions, but not much more. China and Russia will likely continue to support Myanmars military but fall short of dedicating their forces to the fight. But not all is lost for democracy in Myanmar. The Tatmadaw has promised to eventually return to democratic elections, a promise that does look admittedly questionable now but could be acted upon in the future. The opposition movement has also managed to put up an impressive fight against the Tatmadaw, with the military regularly losing battles to opposition forces. At the present moment, then, the militarys victory is not a foregone conclusion; but it does seem that Myanmar's future is in no one's hands, but those of its people.

Read more from the original source:

Why Has the World Forgotten About Myanmar? - Harvard International Review

Written and directed by Megan Park

School shootings in the US occur at an alarming rate; this year has already witnessed 30 or so such tragedies. There are no historical precedents for these phenomena, which are unknown in much of the world. Among the most horrific incidents, etched in the publics memory, include the mass killings at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado (1999), Virginia Tech University in Blacksburg, Virginia (2007), Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut (2012), Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida (2018) and, most recently, Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas.

What do the killings reveal about American life and society? Nothing much, according to the US media and political establishment. People doing very well are unlikely to find much wrong with the social order. By their overwhelming silence or superficiality, the film and music industries register agreement with the media and the rest of the establishment.

On the other hand, the WSWS has argued since the late 1990s that the relentless killing spree reflected a deep social sickness.

In 2019, weinsistedthat the inability to guarantee the bodily and psychological safety of children goes hand in hand with official American societys inability or stubborn unwillingness to comprehend or even seriously address the root causes of these unending tragedies.

The Falloutby Canadian-born filmmaker Megan Park focuses on the aftermath of a high school shooting in an unnamed American city. With only a handful of films (Elephant,We Need to Talk About Kevin,Mass) having taken up this thorny and painful subject, the filmmakers deserve credit for addressing it. However, as is so often the case, the seriousness of the treatment does not correspond to the seriousness of the problem. The film, while sensitively made, sidesteps the social, political and psychological sources of these calamities.

The Falloutopens with a school shooting. Sixteen-year-old Vada(Jenna Ortega) and schoolmate Mia (Maddie Ziegler), a glamorous influencer with thousands of followers, are in the schools lavatory when the piercing sound of a gun shot and all that it implies assault their senses.

Initially shocked, the girls quickly realize they must scramble to hide themselves in a toilet stall. In the distance, we hear what must be a police officer shouting: Drop your weapon now! A few heart-stopping moments later, Quinton (Niles Fitch) crawls into the next stall, desperately assuring the girls he is not the shooter. Quinton, however, is covered in his brothers blood. The action and rapid-fire events in this sequence are sharply chiseled.

After the shooting, Vada and Mia bond in a confusing, disoriented way, preferring to numb themselves with drugs and alcoholunlike friend Nick (Will Ropp), who becomes a political activist.Vada: Do you have nightmares? Mia: You have to be able to sleep to have nightmares.

Both refuse to return to school. Vada becomes alienated from her supportive family, which includes her parents (Julie Bowen and John Ortiz) and precocious younger sister Amelia (Lumi Pollack). The pair of teenage girls spend most of their time isolated at Mias luxurious house. It can function as a refuge because Mias artist parents are abroad and, remarkably, fail to make an appearance after the mass killing.

The reaction of the schools administration is also, remarkably, entirely absent.

I dont know whats wrong with me. I feel so empty, is the closest Vada comes to articulating the emotional impact of the life-changing experience. There are a few pointless mother-promoted therapy sessions with Anna (Shailene Woodley), during which Vada opts for flippancy, avoiding a serious reckoning with her feelings.

Vada is made so distraught by her eventual return to school that shetakes the drug ecstasy, which only accelerates her mental unraveling. Meanwhile, as noted, Nick becomes a student spokesman. Appearing on a local television newscast, he is angry and forceful:We wont live our lives scared to go to school every day. We cant accept a world in which the federal government thinks American students getting cut down in their classrooms isnt a priority. Our leaders have NRA [National Rifle Association] money in their pockets and our blood on their hands. This isThe Fallouts only overtly political moment.

Just when Vada attains a certain inner stability, a breaking news story confirms that 12 students have died in an Ohio shooting.

It was ambitious and commendable of Park to dramatize a school shooting and its aftermath, to represent artistically such a troubling event. However, the question remainsand it is the most important questionhow successfully she does it.

Tellingly, in an interview with slashfilm, Park was asked whether she agreed with the remark of veteran director Gus Van Sant about his 2003 filmElephant, concerned with a school shooting, that he [Van Sant] didn't want to try to give an answer for why this happens, because there is no satisfying answer.

Park was in a hundred percent agreement with Van Sant: Although I hope that there are people who feel hope for Vada and specifically these characters, and that they will eventually find a pathway to understanding and living with their trauma and grief, I think you cannot wrap a movie [like] this up with a bow. That would feel wrong.

No one wants a movie neatly wrapped up with a bow, but perhaps looking at the broader world might be in order.

The WSWS had a different response to the Columbine-inspired Van Sant movie, which at the time of its release was praised by criticsspecificallyfor its failure to put forward any analysis of the shooting.

Naturally,wroteDavid Walsh in 2003, no one will ever know precisely what went through the minds of its perpetrators in the days leading up to the event. Nor can anyone can point conclusively to this or that trauma or slight as the straw that broke the camels back. There are individually specific and inexplicable elements in such mad acts.

It was impossible to predict with scientific accuracy which particular adolescent would collapse, mentally and morally, the WSWS went on. However,ifit was unfeasible to create a picture of the social, political, and cultural landscape in which such anti-human acts were inevitably committed bysomedisoriented youth, then what is the use of our art or our social science?

Vital indicators of impending disaster might include, David Northobservedin a 1999 WSWS article in relation to the Columbine High School massacre, growing polarization between wealth and poverty; atomization of working people and the suppression of their class identity; the glorification of militarism and war; the absence of serious social commentary and political debate; the debased state of popular culture; the worship of the stock exchange; the unrestrained celebration of individual success and personal wealth; the denigration of the ideals of social progress and equality.

It is wrong and harmful to argue, as Park and many others do, that a work of art can profoundly tackle and plumb an event such as a school shooting without discussingin any fashionits origins or causes. This outlook, which advocates retreating from every complex, burning question, is the sign of a retrograde intellectual and cultural climate.

In fact, young people themselves are asking more searching questions, as they inevitably must. On June 11,at a national demonstration against gun violence, the WSWS interviewed high school and college students who showed considerably more insight into the ultimate sources of school violence than the makers ofThe Fallout.

One ninth-grade Chicago public school student commented eloquently: I think its connected to capitalism. Its getting more and more unequal, and more and more barbaric as time goes by. Its like what Rosa Luxemburg said: we are faced with a choice between socialism and barbarism. That could not be more true right now. I think capitalism has to end.

In San Diego, another high school student asserted that Sandy Hook was the first one I remember. It happened to kids our age at the time or a year younger, and it has just gotten worse and more frequentThe US spends so much time worrying about places like the Middle East, and the names that they call them, such as shithole countries and so on, and they are consistently sending troops for war, when in our country, a leading cause of death for children is gun violence. They are just not affected by it People in Congress arerich,they have money, they are at the top of the food chain and are not affected like the rest of us.

A community college student from Detroit told WSWS reporters that We cant do the vote blue [Democrat] no matter who thing anymore. It does not work. The two-party system is what is killing this country. I think people fail to realize that once the workers come together and join under a common cause things will start happening. And that is what they are scared of because once it happens, they are screwed.

Some genuine understanding is beginning to sink in.

Join the Socialist Equality Party!

The Socialist Equality Party is organizing the working class in the fight for socialism: the reorganization of all of economic life to serve social needs, not private profit.

Read the rest here:

The Fallout: A high school shooting and its aftermath - WSWS

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: [emailprotected]

New York City, NY A new coalition of over thirty left groups, rank-and-file workers organizations and unions, and activists have come together to organize a march and rally today in response to the Supreme Court decision Dobbs v. Jackson Womens Health Organization, the case which overturned Roe v. Wade, to protest the attacks on abortion rights by the State and the Right. This coalition includes workers, teachers, abortion rights and community organizations, and socialist organizations like Left Voice, Socialist Alternative, NYC for Abortion Rights, Starbucks Workers United (Astoria Blvd. and Caesars Bay), MORE caucus UFT, Center for Reproductive Rights Union, to name a few.

The rally to go All Out For Abortion Rights in New York City is scheduled for 7 PM EST today, Friday, June 24. Organizers will gather at 6:30 PM in Washington Square Park.

The coalition is organizing this protest under the following banner: for a federal law for free, safe, legal abortion on demand and without apology. Inspired by the mass movements in other countries like Argentina, the coalition believes a national law will only be won through a movement organized in our workplaces, schools, and in the streets. Just as abortion rights were initially won in the streets by committed organizers, and then codified by Roe, we will wage this fight to gain abortion rights for all via a mass movement.

In Ireland, in Argentina, in Poland, and Chile, the abortion struggle has been fought on the streets, through direct action and unapologetic claiming of abortion as an inalienable right not by electing politicians who will defend the right to choose. It is this militant action that we will need in the United States if we want to win, said New York City for Abortion Rights member, Emily Janakiram. New York City for Abortion Rights (NYCFAR), a member of the coalition, was formed five years ago to be part of an important left response to the rights attacks on abortion rights.

Roe v. Wade is being overturned, making abortion illegal in many states. The right wing is on the offensive and only a mass movement from below has the power to halt this all-out attack on women and LGBTQ people. We need to protest, walk out, occupy, and strike to send the message to the courts, the right wing, and both major parties that we wont tolerate these attacks any longer, said Socialist Alternative, another one of the groups sponsoring the action.

The attacks on our rights are a labor issue, especially as working class people, especially people of color, will be bearing the worst of these attacks. For decades, politicians have convinced us that we are helpless to stop these attacks. They tell us to take our anger and fear to the polls election after election to make sure that even the nominal right to an abortion isnt overturned. The legislature or courts will not save us our rights will be fought and won through our own organizing. We cant wait until November which is why well be taking to the streets today in response to the Supreme Court decision, said Left Voice, another co-sponsor.

If your organization, union, or union caucus wants to join us in co-sponsoring this action, please get in touch at [emailprotected].

You can find the most up-to-date information on the rally here: https://www.instagram.com/left_voice/

A media kit with a full list of sponsors and flyers can be found here: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1KYBb8sQpYnFnb_3YkpC4Vqm5l-MU6HDN?usp=sharing

Sponsors List:

Left Voice

Socialist Alternative NYC

Tempest Collective

NYC for Abortion Rights

CUNY for Abortion Rights

Rank and file action CUNY

Starbucks Workers Utd. (Astoria blvd)

Starbucks Workers Utd. (Caesars Bay)

NYU GSOC-UAW Local 2110

Art Workers Inquiry

Student Workers of Columbia

Blue School Union

Brooklyn Eviction Defense

OPEIU Local 1010

Repro Justice Collective Columbia

Repro NYC (extinction rebellion)

Washington Square Park Mutual Aid

MORE caucus UFT

Socialist Revolution (Affiliate of the IMT)

The gym

Crown Heights Care Collective

Fordham Graduate Student Workers

Young Communist League

Association of Legislative Employees NYC Council Union

Center for Reproductive Rights Union

Party For Socialism and Liberation NYC

Thank God for Abortion

If When How CUNY Law

CUNY SPH Sexual and Reproductive Health Rights and Justice Club (Repro Club- CUNY)

Workers Voice/La voz de los trabajadores

Outlive Them NYC

###

See the article here:

Unions, Left, and Activist Groups in New York City Organize Coalition and March in Response to the Supreme Court's Decision to Overturn Abortion...

American political rhetoric is angry, with figures on the right and left casting people on the other side of the divide as extremists, both in their beliefs and their tactics for taking power.

While cynicism about political opponents is not new, it has intensified as politicians have increasingly embraced negative partisanship as a surefire motivator of their respective bases, from President Donald Trumps win in 2016 over a similarly unpopular opponent to the Democrats victories in 2018 and 2020 over Trumpism and the man himself.

But Trumps diminished direct role on the political stage suggests Democrats will have a tougher time wielding negative partisanship to motivate their base for the stretch run of this years midterms. The tallness of that task is underscored by new Morning Consult research, which shows that voters on the right are more likely than those on the left to view the opposing side as ideologically extreme and acting in bad faith. However, Democrats may be able to find fruit in the Republican Partys vocal extremes to motivate voters in the middle, who are more likely to see Republicans as a bigger threat to functioning democratic norms.

Republicans will and probably successfully so seek to motivate their base by tapping into anger at Democrats perceived extremism, said Steven Webster, an assistant political science professor at Indiana University. But pointing especially to independent voters, he added, I also think that this tactic will be useful for Democrats.

On the campaign trail already, Democrats have tried painting their rivals as the embodiment of the far right: They started with messaging that the GOP was the the party of QAnon almost immediately after Biden took office, and later turned to describing their opponents as ultra-MAGA Republicans to highlight fealty to the GOPs unpopular leader.

Republicans, meanwhile, are sticking with their tried-and-true socialism attack, which uses progressive lightning rods such as Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) to paint the broader Democratic Party a relatively big tent with a patchwork of coalitions of varying ideology and interests as extreme. This approach includes the typical arguments about the role the government should play in the life of everyday Americans, but it also seeps into attacks on divisive cultural topics such as LGBTQ rights, immigration policy and systemic racism.

In speaking to their respective bases, its Republicans who find a more receptive audience, as illustrated by a new survey experiment that measured ideological perceptions of each party and its voters. The survey asked voters to place themselves, the two parties and their respective voters on a 1-7 point ideological scale, where 1 means very liberal, 4 means moderate and 7 means very conservative.

Republican voters are more likely than Democrats to both see the other sides voters and party overall as ideologically radical, but they actually place themselves further from the moderate center than Democrats do.

Matt Grossmann, director of the Institute for Public Policy and Social Research at Michigan State University, said Republicans in the electorate arent necessarily afraid to own their ideological conservatism. In many ways its at the heart of their movement, and why the charge of being a RINO (shorthand for Republican in name only) is so present in GOP primaries.

While Republicans in turn are more likely to view their counterparts in the country as ideologically extreme, Grossmann said Democrats may very well judge the GOP on a different scale given Trumps stray from traditional Reagan- and Bush-style conservatism.

We convey the ideological spectrum as about extremity, but not all voters see it that way, and in particular I think Democrats might see things as extreme without seeing them as at the end of an ideological spectrum, he said.

Democratic strategist and former Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee official Ian Russell said hes experienced this dynamic in campaigns, with voters from his partys base being generally more willing to cut Republicans some slack than vice versa.

This has been a problem for a long time, he said. It got me reminiscing about Democratic voters who are educated and know the issues, but like the fact that they vote for the occasional Republican.

You dont see Republicans giving Democrats that same benefit of the doubt very often, he added.

Looking across the other side of the aisle, Democrats and Republicans are more likely to underestimate than overestimate just how widespread some sentiments are, including many outside the political mainstream.

The survey gave Democrats one list and Republicans another of roughly 20 statements and asked them whether they agreed or disagreed. Then, it asked members of the opposite party to estimate the share of Democrats and Republicans who believed them in a test designed to gauge just how close Americans of opposite political persuasions are to understanding their rivals beliefs.

Democrats' views vs. perceptions Republicans' views vs. perceptions

On average, Democrats estimated with near accuracy the share of GOP voters who see no difference in a persons gender and sex, or believe the country would be safer with more gun ownership. Similarly, Democrats almost pegged the share of Republicans who subscribe to the white replacement conspiracy theory that argues Western elites are seeking to make the electorate more diverse in order to weaken whites influence in America.

Democrats underestimated the share of Republicans who believe all Americans should be taxed at the same rate and overestimated the share who believe abortion should be illegal nationwide without exceptions.

With the Supreme Court having overturned the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision and a number of conservative state legislatures across the country having enacted absolutist abortion restrictions abortion rights, in particular, look set to play a major role in Democrats messaging efforts between now and November.

On the other side of the aisle, Republicans, on average, accurately estimated the share of Democrats who believe America should embrace socialism and secularism key issues in the rights culture-driven campaign against Democratic control of Washington. On the other hand, they vastly overestimated the share of Democrats who agree that Jewish people have too much influence in America, a view sometimes alluded to by far-left political figures, or in the tenets of defund the police which most national Democrats have flatly rejected but has nonetheless been plastered on the airwaves by GOP candidates.

Webster said his research into negative partisanship has shown the gaps in understanding of the other sides positions are often driven by the most conservative Republicans and the most liberal Democrats, whom other surveys have shown to be more enthusiastic about participating in elections than those with a less-developed ideology.

The fact that partisans tend to overestimate what supporters of the opposing party believe is problematic because it can reinforce the growing negativity and antipathy that were seeing in American politics, he said.

The relatively hardened positions of the Democratic and Republican parties raises the stakes for how the two parties are perceived by voters in the middle, a bloc that proved responsive to the negativity against Trump in the 2018 and 2020 campaigns but has soured on Biden and the Democrats who control Washington.

Independents a just-right-of-center group who view the Republican Party as slightly more in line with their ideology than the Democratic Party performed roughly as well as their partisan peers, on average, in estimating what either party believes. But intuitively, these voters were also fairly far away from the consensus Republican and Democratic positions.

Agreement gap between Democrats, independents Agreement gap between Republicans, independents

Very few independents agree that America should open its borders to nearly all immigrants who want to come here or that civilians should not be allowed to buy guns in America, views that are held by roughly half of Democratic voters. Independents are even further away from the GOP when asked whether they believe the LGBTQ movement is corrupting children or that all immigrants who came into America illegally should be deported.

Despite these gaps, voters who associate with neither party generally view Republicans as worse actors in the countrys political system.

How independents view partisan voters How partisan voters view each other

For example, independent voters were more likely to say the Republican Party than the Democratic Party is putting party over country, lying to voters, acting immorally or doing whatever it takes to get re-elected. That aligns them more closely with Democratic voters, who, despite being more likely than their GOP counterparts to give the other side the benefit of the doubt on whether theyre doing what they think is right or what is best for the country, have ardently negative views about what motivates the GOP.

So while independents may view Biden and congressional Democrats with increasing negativity, they also tend to view Republicans as a unique threat to a healthy democracy.

Russell, whos working to elect a number of Democrats this year, said thisoffers his party a chance to make 2022 a choice between two parties rather than a traditional midterm referendum on the president and party in power.

On one hand, voters are frustrated with a lot of things in their life and thats inevitably going to impact the way you feel about the county. On the other hand, you have a party thats increasingly extreme in its positions that is beholden to pleasing one man, he said. That gives us an opportunity: One of these two parties is going to be in control.

But Republican strategist and former National Republican Congressional Committee official Matt Gorman described that type of messaging from the Democrats as ultimately too narrowly focused.

You listen to the Democrats talk, from the president of the United States on down, its, Republicans are extreme, or Bidens favorite line: Its not your fathers Republican party. He said that characterization of the GOP may be internalized by parts of the electorate, but its effects were limited given this years broader political environment.

Still, while negative partisanship may not ultimately be enough to keep Democrats in control of both chambers of Congress past this year, the potential for another Trump presidential campaign would offer Democrats a head-to-head contrast in 2024 against his own extreme politics that helped them take power almost two years ago.

Link:

Negative Partisanship Works in American Elections, but Whom Will It Help the Most in 2022? - Morning Consult

The Conservatives brand is being taken to the cleaners. According to Lord Ashcrofts focus groups, the words and phrases most often associated with the Conservative party right now are 'untrustworthy', 'for themselves', 'out of touch', and 'for the few'. The Conservatives are at risk of becoming the Nasty Party again. Given all the years spent detoxifying the partys brand, how has it come to this?

The reputation of every governing party suffers with time, but the Conservatives seem to have a particular knack for being seen as heartless the longer they are in office. At a time when households are struggling, the Conservatives find themselves in a position where despite spending 37 billon to help, they are still seen as out of touch. It is not what Conservatives do, but how they do it which is the problem.

Some Conservatives point to the public finances for their failure to do more of the poorest. However, the Chancellor already built into this previous Budget significant fiscal headroom to deal with a potential crisis. Public sector net debt is due to fall from to 83 per cent in 2026-27.

Others would say that the best way to lift people out of poverty is work, but Brits have been seeking work in record numbers. Providing support to families during the pandemic did not undermine peoples work ethic. Why would it do so during this cost-of-living crisis?

There is a long Conservative tradition of supporting measures to alleviate working poverty. It was the Tories that opposed the workhouses in the19thcentury and passed legislation to improving working conditions. During the inter-war years, Stanley Baldwin and Neville Chamberlain expanded unemployment support and abolished the workhouses. Libertarians dismiss this crudely as paternalism. The truth is that conservatives have always been motivated by a sense of duty to others.

It was not conservativism that drove an aversion to welfare but two forces from the left. One electoral, the other philosophical. Electorally the emergence of the Labour party as a major political force created a big problem after the war. The Conservatives who had once been seen as the counter to the heartless Liberals now found themselves outflanked by a more generous Labour party.

More importantly, Conservatives allowed themselves to become beholden to Marxist ideas. In fighting communism overseas, thinkers on the right began to accept one of the core principles of Marxism, namely that human nature is influenced through the structure of the economy and material conditions.

Conservatives have traditionally dismissed ideologies which believe that human nature is as malleable. However, the existence of communism across a third of the worlds population sowed the seeds of doubt. What if human nature could be changed through the structure of the economy? Would people be prepared to give up on democracy? On the family? Looking closer to home, conservatives began to question the welfare state that had emerged after the war. The relative electoral success of Labour in the mid-1960s and early 1970s created a paranoia that Labour was making Labour voters through generous welfare policies.

This Marxism has deeply influenced the Conservatives policy and political strategy. If the Soviets were manufacturing communists abroad and Labour was warping the people at home, the Conservatives could do the same. One of the clearest examples of this philosophy in action has been the Right to Buy. This policy was not simply about giving people security over their home, it was about changing the character of people. It was for this reason that money from the Right to Buy would not go into building more social housing, despite commitments to do so, but because that would merely recreate the conditions for socialism.

The Tories Marxism is why it cannot move forward and announces variations on this policy every few years. Boris Johnson echoed Thatcher in his recent speech on housing, where he claimed that Right to Buy policies led people to switch 'identities and psychology'. This is an argument Marx would understand.

Ideologically, Conservatives have come to believe that every pound of welfare spending or social housing is an investment in socialism. Voters dont see it that way. Ironically, it is the partys Marxism that has led it to becoming the perennial Nasty Party.

Brexit has created an opportunity for the party to rediscover its conservatism. In 2019, for the first time in their history, Conservatives outpolled Labour amongst people on low incomes. Analysis on behalf of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation identified policies to end the benefit freeze and increase the National Living Wage as reasons for this shift. Turning its back on the austerity politics was also crucial.

The 2017 and 2019 elections also demonstrated the fallacy of the idea that welfare policies 'create' certain types of voters. In 2019, the Conservatives recorded a bigger swing amongst social renters than they did from homeowners or private renters,according to Ipsos Mori. New analysis from the Max Planck Institutehas found little link between home ownership and becoming conservative in the UK.

Conservatives need to rediscover their confidence in values of the British people. Just as Disraeli took the gamble of expanding the franchise, trusting that conservative values could appeal to working people, so the Conservatives need to break out of their present ideological prison that creates ridiculous contortions such as increasing pensions but not support for working people to help with cost of living. The conservative way to win elections is to demonstrate a commitment to the national interest and to appeal to peoples sense of patriotism and community. The Prime Ministers love of Britain is well documented. For the partys sake, he must be the man who can help his party to trust the character of the British people again. The alternative is to continue to embrace a Marxist perspective that will continue to alienate the public.

Read the original post:

Why the Tories struggle to shake off the 'nasty party' label - The Spectator