12345...102030...


Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a Liberal Voice on Supreme Court, Dies at 87 – The Wall Street Journal

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a pioneering figure in the fight for womens legal equality and the second woman to serve on the Supreme Court, died Friday in her Washington home, surrounded by her family. She succumbed to metastatic pancreas cancer at the age of 87, the Supreme Court said.

Our Nation has lost a jurist of historic stature. We at the Supreme Court have lost a cherished colleague, said Chief Justice John Roberts. Today we mourn, but with confidence that future generations will remember Ruth Bader Ginsburg as we knew hera tireless and resolute champion of justice.

Justice Ginsburgs death leaves the court with eight members and a vacancy just 46 days before the presidential election. Just last week, President Trump added 20 more names to his list of potential Supreme Court nomineesall of whom with views sharply to the right of Justice Ginsburg. A political battle over who will fill her seat is certain to shape the final act of the contest between Mr. Trump and his Democratic challenger, former Vice President Joe Biden.

Cast by seniority to lead the high courts liberal bloc, the 1993 Clinton appointee spent her last years on the bench pushing back against an emboldened conservative majority, sometimes winning surprise victories or mitigating expected defeats by peeling off a vote from conservatives including Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Anthony Kennedy, Neil Gorsuch or Brett Kavanaugh.

But it was a period more often of defeat for the liberal jurisprudence that shaped Justice Ginsburg, who attended law school and began practice during the ambitious era of the Warren Court, and which she then helped steer as a womens rights advocate in the 1970s. In recent years, she spoke most forcefully in dissent, sometimes reading from the bench, from decisions she viewed as antithetical to the social progress she believed the Constitution embraced.

See the original post here:

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a Liberal Voice on Supreme Court, Dies at 87 - The Wall Street Journal

Trump rails against the ‘liberal indoctrination of America’s youth’ in latest culture war salvo – CNN

');$vidEndSlate.removeClass('video__end-slate--inactive').addClass('video__end-slate--active');}};CNN.autoPlayVideoExist = (CNN.autoPlayVideoExist === true) ? true : false;var configObj = {thumb: 'none',video: 'business/2020/09/06/trump-takes-aim-at-the-new-york-times-1619-project.cnn',width: '100%',height: '100%',section: 'domestic',profile: 'expansion',network: 'cnn',markupId: 'large-media_0',adsection: 'const-article-pagetop',frameWidth: '100%',frameHeight: '100%',posterImageOverride: {"mini":{"width":220,"type":"jpg","uri":"//cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/200906135405-rs-b-block-hemmer-small-169.jpg","height":124},"xsmall":{"width":307,"type":"jpg","uri":"//cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/200906135405-rs-b-block-hemmer-medium-plus-169.jpg","height":173},"small":{"width":460,"type":"jpg","uri":"//cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/200906135405-rs-b-block-hemmer-large-169.jpg","height":259},"medium":{"width":780,"type":"jpg","uri":"//cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/200906135405-rs-b-block-hemmer-exlarge-169.jpg","height":438},"large":{"width":1100,"type":"jpg","uri":"//cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/200906135405-rs-b-block-hemmer-super-169.jpg","height":619},"full16x9":{"width":1600,"type":"jpg","uri":"//cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/200906135405-rs-b-block-hemmer-full-169.jpg","height":900},"mini1x1":{"width":120,"type":"jpg","uri":"//cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/200906135405-rs-b-block-hemmer-small-11.jpg","height":120}}},autoStartVideo = false,isVideoReplayClicked = false,callbackObj,containerEl,currentVideoCollection = [],currentVideoCollectionId = '',isLivePlayer = false,mediaMetadataCallbacks,mobilePinnedView = null,moveToNextTimeout,mutePlayerEnabled = false,nextVideoId = '',nextVideoUrl = '',turnOnFlashMessaging = false,videoPinner,videoEndSlateImpl;if (CNN.autoPlayVideoExist === false) {autoStartVideo = true;if (autoStartVideo === true) {if (turnOnFlashMessaging === true) {autoStartVideo = false;containerEl = jQuery(document.getElementById(configObj.markupId));CNN.VideoPlayer.showFlashSlate(containerEl);} else {CNN.autoPlayVideoExist = true;}}}configObj.autostart = CNN.Features.enableAutoplayBlock ? false : autoStartVideo;CNN.VideoPlayer.setPlayerProperties(configObj.markupId, autoStartVideo, isLivePlayer, isVideoReplayClicked, mutePlayerEnabled);CNN.VideoPlayer.setFirstVideoInCollection(currentVideoCollection, configObj.markupId);videoEndSlateImpl = new CNN.VideoEndSlate('large-media_0');function findNextVideo(currentVideoId) {var i,vidObj;if (currentVideoId && jQuery.isArray(currentVideoCollection) && currentVideoCollection.length > 0) {for (i = 0; i 0) {videoEndSlateImpl.showEndSlateForContainer();if (mobilePinnedView) {mobilePinnedView.disable();}}}}callbackObj = {onPlayerReady: function (containerId) {var playerInstance,containerClassId = '#' + containerId;CNN.VideoPlayer.handleInitialExpandableVideoState(containerId);CNN.VideoPlayer.handleAdOnCVPVisibilityChange(containerId, CNN.pageVis.isDocumentVisible());if (CNN.Features.enableMobileWebFloatingPlayer &&Modernizr &&(Modernizr.phone || Modernizr.mobile || Modernizr.tablet) &&CNN.VideoPlayer.getLibraryName(containerId) === 'fave' &&jQuery(containerClassId).parents('.js-pg-rail-tall__head').length > 0 &&CNN.contentModel.pageType === 'article') {playerInstance = FAVE.player.getInstance(containerId);mobilePinnedView = new CNN.MobilePinnedView({element: jQuery(containerClassId),enabled: false,transition: CNN.MobileWebFloatingPlayer.transition,onPin: function () {playerInstance.hideUI();},onUnpin: function () {playerInstance.showUI();},onPlayerClick: function () {if (mobilePinnedView) {playerInstance.enterFullscreen();playerInstance.showUI();}},onDismiss: function() {CNN.Videx.mobile.pinnedPlayer.disable();playerInstance.pause();}});/* Storing pinned view on CNN.Videx.mobile.pinnedPlayer So that all players can see the single pinned player */CNN.Videx = CNN.Videx || {};CNN.Videx.mobile = CNN.Videx.mobile || {};CNN.Videx.mobile.pinnedPlayer = mobilePinnedView;}if (Modernizr && !Modernizr.phone && !Modernizr.mobile && !Modernizr.tablet) {if (jQuery(containerClassId).parents('.js-pg-rail-tall__head').length) {videoPinner = new CNN.VideoPinner(containerClassId);videoPinner.init();} else {CNN.VideoPlayer.hideThumbnail(containerId);}}},onContentEntryLoad: function(containerId, playerId, contentid, isQueue) {CNN.VideoPlayer.showSpinner(containerId);},onContentPause: function (containerId, playerId, videoId, paused) {if (mobilePinnedView) {CNN.VideoPlayer.handleMobilePinnedPlayerStates(containerId, paused);}},onContentMetadata: function (containerId, playerId, metadata, contentId, duration, width, height) {var endSlateLen = jQuery(document.getElementById(containerId)).parent().find('.js-video__end-slate').eq(0).length;CNN.VideoSourceUtils.updateSource(containerId, metadata);if (endSlateLen > 0) {videoEndSlateImpl.fetchAndShowRecommendedVideos(metadata);}},onAdPlay: function (containerId, cvpId, token, mode, id, duration, blockId, adType) {/* Dismissing the pinnedPlayer if another video players plays an Ad */CNN.VideoPlayer.dismissMobilePinnedPlayer(containerId);clearTimeout(moveToNextTimeout);CNN.VideoPlayer.hideSpinner(containerId);if (Modernizr && !Modernizr.phone && !Modernizr.mobile && !Modernizr.tablet) {if (typeof videoPinner !== 'undefined' && videoPinner !== null) {videoPinner.setIsPlaying(true);videoPinner.animateDown();}}},onAdPause: function (containerId, playerId, token, mode, id, duration, blockId, adType, instance, isAdPause) {if (mobilePinnedView) {CNN.VideoPlayer.handleMobilePinnedPlayerStates(containerId, isAdPause);}},onTrackingFullscreen: function (containerId, PlayerId, dataObj) {CNN.VideoPlayer.handleFullscreenChange(containerId, dataObj);if (mobilePinnedView &&typeof dataObj === 'object' &&FAVE.Utils.os === 'iOS' && !dataObj.fullscreen) {jQuery(document).scrollTop(mobilePinnedView.getScrollPosition());playerInstance.hideUI();}},onContentPlay: function (containerId, cvpId, event) {var playerInstance,prevVideoId;if (CNN.companion && typeof CNN.companion.updateCompanionLayout === 'function') {CNN.companion.updateCompanionLayout('restoreEpicAds');}clearTimeout(moveToNextTimeout);CNN.VideoPlayer.hideSpinner(containerId);if (Modernizr && !Modernizr.phone && !Modernizr.mobile && !Modernizr.tablet) {if (typeof videoPinner !== 'undefined' && videoPinner !== null) {videoPinner.setIsPlaying(true);videoPinner.animateDown();}}},onContentReplayRequest: function (containerId, cvpId, contentId) {if (Modernizr && !Modernizr.phone && !Modernizr.mobile && !Modernizr.tablet) {if (typeof videoPinner !== 'undefined' && videoPinner !== null) {videoPinner.setIsPlaying(true);var $endSlate = jQuery(document.getElementById(containerId)).parent().find('.js-video__end-slate').eq(0);if ($endSlate.length > 0) {$endSlate.removeClass('video__end-slate--active').addClass('video__end-slate--inactive');}}}},onContentBegin: function (containerId, cvpId, contentId) {if (mobilePinnedView) {mobilePinnedView.enable();}/* Dismissing the pinnedPlayer if another video players plays a video. */CNN.VideoPlayer.dismissMobilePinnedPlayer(containerId);CNN.VideoPlayer.mutePlayer(containerId);if (CNN.companion && typeof CNN.companion.updateCompanionLayout === 'function') {CNN.companion.updateCompanionLayout('removeEpicAds');}CNN.VideoPlayer.hideSpinner(containerId);clearTimeout(moveToNextTimeout);CNN.VideoSourceUtils.clearSource(containerId);jQuery(document).triggerVideoContentStarted();},onContentComplete: function (containerId, cvpId, contentId) {if (CNN.companion && typeof CNN.companion.updateCompanionLayout === 'function') {CNN.companion.updateCompanionLayout('restoreFreewheel');}navigateToNextVideo(contentId, containerId);},onContentEnd: function (containerId, cvpId, contentId) {if (Modernizr && !Modernizr.phone && !Modernizr.mobile && !Modernizr.tablet) {if (typeof videoPinner !== 'undefined' && videoPinner !== null) {videoPinner.setIsPlaying(false);}}},onCVPVisibilityChange: function (containerId, cvpId, visible) {CNN.VideoPlayer.handleAdOnCVPVisibilityChange(containerId, visible);}};if (typeof configObj.context !== 'string' || configObj.context.length 0) {configObj.adsection = window.ssid;}CNN.autoPlayVideoExist = (CNN.autoPlayVideoExist === true) ? true : false;CNN.VideoPlayer.getLibrary(configObj, callbackObj, isLivePlayer);});CNN.INJECTOR.scriptComplete('videodemanddust');

Read the original post:

Trump rails against the 'liberal indoctrination of America's youth' in latest culture war salvo - CNN

Akland will stop liberal Democrats | Letters To The Editor – Mankato Free Press

We live in unprecedented times. A pandemic, social unrest, and the movement to incorporate Marxist ideologies into our society have put our country and the freedoms that we value and cherish at risk.

This election is critical for stopping the wave of liberal Democrats from ripping the foundation that our founding fathers laid out in our constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

We need candidates that have common sense and wont be afraid to oppose those that are working to destroy our society. Susan Akland (running for House District 19A) is that candidate. She is speaking up for the values that southern Minnesotans care about.

Her commitment to lowering health-care costs, controlling taxes and unnecessary government spending, and protecting the freedoms that are at risk is her number one priority. Aklandis not interested in playing politics, but she is committed to using sound reason and common sense to make decisions for change.

If you want someone to fight for the people of this community, Akland is the only choice.

Eric Litynski

St. Peter

We are making critical coverage of the coronavirus available for free. Please consider subscribing so we can continue to bring you the latest news and information on this developing story.

Originally posted here:

Akland will stop liberal Democrats | Letters To The Editor - Mankato Free Press

Why Liberals Should Unite With Socialists, Not the Right – Jacobin magazine

Last month, the conservative philosopher Yoram Hazony published an essay in Quillette on The Challenge of Marxism. Hazony is known for his 2018 book The Virtue of Nationalism, which lodged some valid critiques of liberalism, but was ultimately unconvincing in its effort to reframe nationalism as an anti-imperialist endeavor. His chosen exemplars included the United Kingdom, France, and the United States all countries with long histories of colonialism and expansionism.

With his new essay, Hazony has jumped into the culture wars, attempting to explain and criticize the astonishingly successful Marxist takeover of companies, universities and schools, major corporations and philanthropic organizations, and even the courts, the government bureaucracy, and some churches. He concludes with a call for liberals to unite with conservatives to halt this takeover, lest the dastardly Marxists achieve their goal of conquering liberalism itself.

Hazonys essay, though long and detailed, has many flaws. In the end, its less a compelling takedown of contemporary leftists than another illustration of why conservatives should read Marx.

Hazony opens his essay with an odd claim. Contemporary Marxists, he argues, arent willing to wear their colors proudly, instead attempting to disorient their opponents by referring to their beliefs with a shifting vocabulary of terms, including the Left, Progressivism, Social Justice, Anti-Racism, Anti-Fascism, Black Lives Matter, Critical Race Theory, Identity Politics, Political Correctness, Wokeness, and more. Nonetheless the essence of the political left remains staunchly Marxist, building upon Marxs framework as Hazony understands it.

For him, Marxism has four characteristics. First, it is based on an oppressor/oppressed narrative, viewing people as invariably attached to groups that exploit one another. Second, it posits a theory of false consciousness where the ruling class and their victims may be unaware of the exploitation occurring, since it is obscured by the ruling ideology. Third, Marxists demand the revolutionary reconstitution of society through the destruction of the ruling class and its ideology. And finally, once the revolution is accomplished, a classless society will emerge.

This account ignores a tremendous amount of what makes Marxism theoretically interesting, focusing instead on well-known tropes and clichs. It is startling, but telling, that Hazony never once approaches Marxism as a critique of political economy, even though Marx was kind enough to label two of his books critiques of political economy. By effacing this fundamental characteristic of Marxism, Hazony reduces it to a simplistic doctrine that could be mapped onto more or less anything.

If it is true that Marxism is just an oppressor/oppressed narrative with some stuff about a ruling ideology and revolution tacked on, then mostly every revolutionary movement through history has been Marxist even before Marx lived. The American revolutionaries who criticized the ruling ideology of monarchism and waged a war for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness would fit three of Hazonys four characteristics, making them borderline proto-Marxists. About the only thing that remains of what distinguished Marx in Hazonys account is his claim that we are moving toward a classless society, something about which the German critic wrote very little.

Marxism is a very specific modernist doctrine, inspired by the events and ideas of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Marx drew on three dominant currents in European thought at the time: the German philosophical reaction to Hegel, French radicalism, and English political economy.

From Hegel, Marx took the idea that history is the story of humanity moving toward greater freedom, understood by both Hegel and Marx as the capacity for self-determination. Marx famously attempted to turn Hegel right side up by contending that the renowned philosophers emphasis on ideas was misguided: material relations, Marx argued, largely moved history forward. From French radicalism, Marx took the idea of a class conflict between workers and the bourgeoisie. He was certain that one day we would live in a classless society, where every individual could develop each side of their nature.

And from the English political economists, Marx took much of his understanding about how capitalism worked; in particular, he drew on David Ricardo to argue that the exchange value of commodities lay in the socially necessary labor time invested in them. This last point was important for Marx circa Capital Volume One, since it seemed to explain the mechanism of workers exploitation. As David Harvey has pointed out, in the later posthumous volumes things become more complicated as Marx began to theorize on the nature of fictitious capital in the stock and credit markets. These developments demonstrated how capitalism was able to adapt to its own contradictions, but only through quick fixes that left the fundamental tensions intact and could even sharpen them over time.

This quick summary by no means captures the breadth of Marxs work. But it should at least suggest how much richer Marxism is than the simple antagonisms Hazony puts forward.

This tendency for crude simplification extends to Hazonys treatment of neo-Marxism, which he associates with successor movements led by Michel Foucault, postmodernism, and more including the Progressive or Anti-Racism movement now advancing toward the conquest of liberalism in America and Britain. But how or why these movements owe much, if anything, to Marxism is left extremely vague. Michel Foucault famously denigrated Marxism as outdated nineteenth-century economics and even flirted with neoliberalism. So much for class conflict as the engine of history. As for the anti-racist movements gathering steam across the world, theyre more likely to look to Martin Luther King and other totems of the black freedom struggle than Marx.

None of this is to say these movements dont or shouldnt draw from Marx (they should!). But reducing them to simply updated Marxism ignores the particularities and histories of progressive figures and movements rather ironic given that Hazony spends a great deal of The Virtue of Nationalism arguing for the benefits of a world of particular nations, each with its own identity, history, and customs that warrant respect.

Later in his essay, Hazony makes the novel decision to criticize liberals who believe Marxism is nothing but a great lie. This isnt because he wishes to praise Marxisms theoretical insights or political ambitions, but because he shares its progenitors critical appraisal of liberal individualism.

Hazony argues Marx was well aware that the liberal conception of the individual self, possessing rights and liberties secured by the state, was an ideological and legal fiction. While liberals felt that the modern state had provided full liberty for all, Hazony takes the Marxist insight to be that there will always be disparities in power between social groups, and the more powerful will always oppress or exploit the weaker. As he puts it:

Marx is right to see that every society consists of cohesive classes or groups, and that political life everywhere is primarily about the power relations among different groups. He is also right that at any given time, one group (or a coalition of groups) dominates the state, and that the laws and policies of the state tend to reflect the interests and ideals of this dominant group. Moreover, Marx is right when he says that the dominant group tends to see its own preferred laws and policies as reflecting reason or nature, and works to disseminate its way of looking at things throughout society, so that various kinds of injustice and oppression tend to be obscured from view.

Hazony goes on to criticize American liberals for pushing secularization and liberalization, particularly by excluding religion from schools and permitting pornography, which amount to quiet persecution of religious families. Liberals tend to be systematically blind to the oppression they wreak against conservatives, merely assuming that their doctrines provide liberty and equality for all. Hazony thinks Marx was far savvier in recognizing that by analyzing society in terms of power relations among classes or groups, we can bring to light important political phenomena to which Enlightenment liberal theories theories that tend to reduce politics to the individual and his or her private liberties are systematically blind.

None of this means Hazony is sympathetic to the idea that workers are the victims of exploitation or anything else that smacks of left-wing critique. Later in the essay, he criticizes Marxism for having three fatal flaws. First, Marxists assume any form of power relation is a relationship of oppressor and oppressed, even though some are mutually beneficial. Second, they believe that social oppression must be so great that any given society will inevitably be fraught with tension, leading to its eventual overthrow. And finally, Marx and Marxists are notoriously vague about the specifics of post-oppression society, and their actual track record is a parade of horrors.

Of the three, only the last strikes me as at all compelling. It is true that Marx never spelled out what a postcapitalist society would look like, and this ambiguity has led to figures like Stalin invoking his theories to justify tyranny. Socialists are better-off confronting this problem than pretending it doesnt exist, which makes us easier prey for critiques like Hazonys.

But whatever Marx intended, we can infer from his Critique of the Gotha Program that he wanted a democratic society free of exploitation, where the means of production were owned in common and distribution was organized according to the principle from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. Whatever that might look like, it bears little resemblance to the litany of dictatorships conservatives love to point to when trashing Marxism. (Conservatives critics also skate by the central role that class struggle and Marxist-inspired parties played in building social democracies, even if those societies never transcended capitalism.)

There are big problems with pretty much every other feature of Hazonys analysis of the flaws of Marxism and leftism. Hazony never takes on the specifically Marxist point that the relation between capital and labor is indeed oppressive and exploitative a key point, since Marx never claimed that all types of power relations or hierarchies were illegitimate. His argument was far more specific: capitalist relations were oppressive because they were based on the systematic exploitation of labor.

Hazony might have been on firmer ground with his second criticism if hed leaned into his critique of the teleological vision of history, which led some classical Marxists to claim capitalism was going to inevitably fall and be replaced by communism. But his contention doesnt even rise to this level. Instead, he wants to argue that in a conservative society, it is possible weaker groups [would] benefit from their position, or at least are better-off than in a revolutionarily reconstituted polity.

And this is where things get interesting.

Hazony isnt fond of liberalism. He sees American liberalism in particular as an oppressive force that has bullied religious and conservative families by advancing a pornographic, secular agenda. But Hazony is also deeply anxious that liberals will ally with progressive and Marxist groups the great evil, in his mind to further corrode conservatism.

In the most insightful part of his essay, Hazony describes the dance of liberalism and Marxism. Liberals and Marxists both believe in freedom and equality, and both are hostile to inherited traditions and hierarchies. Marxists and other progressives just take things a step further by arguing that real freedom and equality havent been achieved because of capitalism and other elements of liberal society. Under the right conditions, Hazony argues, liberals might become sympathetic to these arguments, since they often draw on the principles and rhetoric of liberalism. Liberals might even start pushing a Marxist agenda.

Hazony, then, isnt criticizing Marxism in the name of defending liberalism. What he is doing trying to entice centrists to side with the political right rather than the political left. He is willing to tolerate liberals as part of an alliance to prevent the Marxist conquest of society.

To make this attractive to liberals, Hazony raises the stakes by suggesting the political left wants to destroy democracy and eliminate both conservatives and liberals. He argues that both conservatives and liberals are distinct in allowing at minimum a two-party system dominated by themselves. By contrast, Marxists are only willing to confer legitimacy on ... one political party the party of the oppressed, whose aim is the revolutionary reconstitution of society. And this means that the Marxist political framework cannot co-exist with democratic government.

This is patently wrong. One of socialists ambitions since the nineteenth century has been to advance democracy in the political sphere, which is why they were central to the struggle for workers suffrage in Europe and elsewhere. Socialists deplore liberal capitalism for not being democratic enough. Likewise, the other progressive groups denigrated in Hazonys essay are hardly foes of democracy: anti-racist movements have been agitating against voter suppression.

It is also telling that Hazonys essay ignores the antidemocratic efforts of contemporary conservative strongmen, from Viktor Orbns dismantling of democracy in Hungary to Trumps flirtations with canceling the 2020 election. Probably a savvy move given that none of this supports Hazonys contention that liberal democrats have nothing to fear from aligning with the political right.

Interestingly, Hazonys essay skirts near a deep insight, before rushing away, perhaps for tactical reasons. The insight: both liberalism and Marxism properly understood are eminently modernist doctrines. Both emerged within a few centuries of each other and are committed to the principles of respecting moral equality by securing freedom for all.

The march of liberalism and socialism have razed traditionalist orders and hierarchies that insisted on naturalizing inequities of power. These traditionalist orders were neither natural nor particularly beneficent, subordinating women, LGBT individuals, religious and ethnic minorities, and so on for millennia.

Liberalism often failed to live up to its principles, which is partly why the political left emerged and remains so necessary. Liberals often engaged in just the kind of tactical alliances with conservative traditionalists Hazony calls for in order to maintain unjustifiable hierarchies. But this alliance is always fraught, since a liberal who doesnt believe in freedom and equality for all is no liberal.

The same is true of those of us on the political left, except we believe that these ideals cannot be achieved within the bounds of the liberal state and ideology. More radical reforms are needed to complete the historical process of emancipation from necessity and exploitation, though what reforms and how radical are matters of substantial debate. (My own preference is for what the philosopher John Rawls would call liberal socialism.)

All this brings us squarely back to Karl Marx, who was very aware of these dynamics. With Engels, he applauded liberal capitalism for both its productive capacity and, for the first time, enshrining formal equality for all. It had achieved this precisely by upending the old traditionalist order, profaning all that was sacred, and forcing humanity to face up to its real conditions for the first time.

But liberalism remained just one stage in the movement of history, and like all before it would eventually give way to a new form of society. Whether this is inevitable, as Marx sometimes seemed to imply, there are indeed many limitations to liberal democracy as it exists today. Liberals sincerely committed to freedom and equality should recognize that and ask if they are better-off allied to a political right committed to turning back the clock or striding into the future with progressives and socialists who share many of their fundamentally modernist convictions.

Read the original post:

Why Liberals Should Unite With Socialists, Not the Right - Jacobin magazine

$1B supply bill passed in N.L. falls short of Liberal governments wishes – Global News

ByThe StaffThe Canadian Press

Posted September 18, 2020 12:44 pm

-A

A+

Though it wasnt exactly what it had sought, the Newfoundland and Labrador government has succeeded in passing a bill to get through the coming months while awaiting an approved budget.

The minority Liberal government had originally proposed a three-month $1.56-billion interim supply bill, which would let the government keep spending despite not having passed a budget.

But after pushback from the opposition parties, the bill that passed on Thursday provided $1.04 billion for two months.

Finance Minister Siobhan Coady told the legislature that a three-month bill is standard.

Trending Stories

She said the shortened timeline means the opposition parties will have to pass the upcoming budget in good time or another supply bill will be needed.

Story continues below advertisement

The provinces budget was delayed this year because of the pandemic but is expected to be tabled Sept. 30.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Sept. 18, 2020.

2020 The Canadian Press

Read more:

$1B supply bill passed in N.L. falls short of Liberal governments wishes - Global News

Liberals hold thin advantage federally as possible election looms – Business in Vancouver

Over the past few weeks, the notion of the federal government holding an early election has been discussed at length.

Capitalizing on the inexperience of an incoming leader of the Opposition can result in a fresh mandate and more seats, as Jean Chrtiens Liberal Party proved in 2000 just 20 weeks after Stockwell Day became the leader of the now-defunct Canadian Alliance.

The countrys situation is extremely different two decades later. Erin OToole is the new leader of the Conservative Party, and todays federal Liberals unlike Chrtiens version two decades ago oversee a minority government. An election in the middle of the COVID-19 pandemic may be problematic for the governing party.

In the latest check on federal politics by Research Co. and Glacier Media, the Liberals remain ahead. Almost two in five decided voters (38%) would support the Liberal candidate in their riding, with the Conservatives at 32% and the New Democratic Party (NDP) at 17%.

On a regional basis, the most compelling race would take place in British Columbia, with the Conservatives currently at 34%, the Liberals at 31% and the New Democrats at 29%. The governing party remains dominant in Ontario with a 13-point lead over the Conservatives (43% to 30%), while Alberta is still solidly behind the Tories (58%).

Canadas three minor parties have seen some fluctuations since our last survey in May. The Bloc Qubcois has jumped to 8% nationally (and 34% in the only province where it fields candidates, five points behind the Liberals). In Quebec, the Conservatives, new leader and all, are at 12%. It will take a lot of work for the Tories to become competitive again in this province.

For the Green Party, the situation is dire. As the party stands to select a new leader to replace Elizabeth May, the Greens have dropped to 3% across the country. Even in British Columbia, the party has fallen to low single digits (4%). The proportion of Canadians who think the environment is the most important issue facing the country stands at 7%, a number that is pushed to respectability by 16% of Quebecers one of the provinces where the Greens have never elected a Member of Parliament.

The Peoples Party is at 1%, with 2% of Canadians saying that Maxime Bernier would make the best prime minister. Some may have expected Conservatives who were disenchanted with OTooles victory in the leadership race to give the Peoples Party a second look. So far, this is not happening.

The issue landscape once again shows a country rich with regional concerns. The top issue in Canada is the economy and jobs (30%, climbing to 52% in Alberta), followed by health care (25%, but reaching 44% in Atlantic Canada) and housing, homelessness and poverty (12%, but at 19% in British Columbia and Ontario).

It is important to note that only 9% of respondents to this survey selected Other when asked what the biggest issue facing the country is. Many of them typed in COVID-19 or a different variation of the term.

As we reported on earlier this month, the level of satisfaction from Canadians in how the federal government has handled COVID-19 remains high (64%, 25 points higher than the 39% of Americans who are content with their own federal administration). Still, it is clear that COVID-19 does not take precedence over the action that Canadians demand on other issues. Most Canadians have already made peace with the fact that the pandemic, with all of its consequences, will be with us for a few more months.

The personal appeal of party leaders is also crucial if a federal election happens before the end of the year. A majority of Canadians (51%) approve of Justin Trudeaus performance as prime minister and Liberal leader. Only Jagmeet Singh of the NDP comes close (44%), but the New Democrats continue to be plagued by a sizable gap in sympathy for their leader and votes for their candidates.

At this stage, OToole divides Canadians in three practically identical components: 33% approve of his performance, 34% disapprove of it, and 33% are undecided. The numbers are lower on disapproval than what Andrew Scheer posted in the eve of last years federal election. We will have to see how the undecideds turn once they get to know the new leader of the official Opposition.

If an election took place tomorrow, not much would change. For the NDP, as it was in the second federal balot where the party was led by Jack Layton in 2006, it becomes a matter of expanding the seat count. The chances of the Conservatives hinge on OToole establishing a superior emotional connection and a viable economic recovery plan. At this point, even with the extraordinary level of satisfaction with how the pandemic has been managed, there is no guarantee of a majority government for the Liberals.

Mario Canseco is president of Research Co.

Results are based on an online study conducted from September 11 to September 13, 2020, among 1,000 adults in Canada. The data has been statistically weighted according to Canadian census figures for age, gender and region. The margin of error, which measures sample variability, is plus or minus 3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

Read this article:

Liberals hold thin advantage federally as possible election looms - Business in Vancouver

The ethics czar rules on another Liberal conflict of interest of interest – Maclean’s

Politics Insider for Sept. 17: Canada's former ambassador in Washington gets a wrist slap, COVID testing capacity is a nightmare in Ottawa and the feds are selling an electric guitar

Welcome to a sneak peek of theMacleansPolitics Insidernewsletter.Sign up to get it deliveredstraight to your inbox.

The federal ethics commissioner, Mario Dion, has ordered nine Liberal politicians, senior staffers and top public servants notto conduct any official dealings with David MacNaughton, Canadas former ambassador to the U.S. and a longtime Trudeau government insider, for one year. The order applies to Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland andIndustry Minister Navdeep Bains, as well as two ministerial chiefs of staff andthree deputy ministers. Rick Theis, the PMs director of policy and cabinet affairs, is on the list. So is General Jonathan Vance, the outgoing chief of defence staff.

The commissioner found that in the pandemics early days, MacNaughton pitched thepro bono services of Palantir Technologies Canada, the software company he now heads up in Ottawa. Dion ruled that the former ambassador had broken the rule against taking improper advantage of a previous government gig, but also concluded that Palantir did not benefit from the meetings. Back in April,The Logic first reported on MacNaughtons claimsduring a private event that hed lined up meetings with top federal officials(Read the full report.)

Erin OToole and his family got tested yesterday for COVID-19. One of OTooles staffers had come back positive, so the Tory leader and his brood took no chances. It wasnt a banner day for testing capacity in the nations capital. Families eager to get tested faced hours-long outdoor lines.Macleans own Ottawa bureau chief, Shannon Proudfoot, endured a logistical testing nightmare. She gave up on a suburban testing centre when a security guard warned of a six-hour wait. After a wasted trip to a testing centre in Winchester, an hours drive away, she ended up lucking into an appointment at the citys drive-in centre tonight. These ordeals may, she writes, foreshadow a frightening fall. Either well all muddle along, missing work and school

or average, well-intentioned people with busy families and lives that need living are going to start fudging their answers to screening questions, sending kids off to school or daycare or themselves off to their workplaces even when they know symptoms have cropped up in their households, because they cant handle the hassle or outright impossibility of getting tested. After the nightmare I experienced today, I cant say I blame them.

What is Ontarios testing capacity?Every premier sent a letter to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau that outlined how theyd spend their share of the $19-billion federal-provincial Safe Restart Agreement. Premier Doug Fords letter boasted about Ontarios increased capacity, per capita testing rate and overall tests administeredall the highest in Canada. Ford also committed to future capacity well beyond the near-term goal of 50,000 tests a day, and surge testing capacity of up to 78,000 tests per day. Theyll use $1.28 billion in federal payola to make it happen in the coming months. Meanwhile, in the real world, lines grow longer.

The Canadian Press scored an interview with Peter MacKay, the Tory leadership runner-up whos contemplating his next move back home in Nova Scotia. MacKay identified his campaigns fatal flaw:The plan was in retrospect too much focused on the next steps and not enough on winning the party. As he tried to win over soft Liberals and lapsed Tories, his rivals were shoring up their core voteand chipping away at MacKays lead.

Did the WE scandal make charitable Canadians think twice about donating? Yes, says a new Angus Reid Institute poll. Charitable giving was already trending down before the scandal, says the pollster: 37 per cent of respondents have donated less in the past six months (49 per cent remain unchanged and only 9 per cent have increased donations). Fifty-five per cent of Canadians say the scandal is seriousand a similar majority say its raised questions about the whole sector. While most Canadians say WEs troubles havent had an impact on their donations, a solid 38 per cent still say theyre rethinking their giving.

Parks Canada has declared a caribou herd in Jasper National Park locally extinct. On Sept. 3, the agency snuck an update on the population of the maligne herd onto its website. That declining herd was last observed in 2018 and is considered extirpated. Two other herds, the tonquin and brazeau, do not have enough female caribouto be able to grow the herds. That update marked a stark change to the same webpage earlier this year. The Rocky Mountain Outlook quotedthe Alberta Wilderness Association saying the extirpation was a tragic, predictable result of decades-long habitat and wildlife errors.

Need an electric guitar? The federal government would be happy to sell one to you. The federal surplus website is auctioning off a used Dean Hollywood axethe closing date is today at 2 pm ETthats replete with scratches, and comes with no strings, no power cable and a damaged case. Full functionality, reads a description, is unknown. That hasnt stopped bidders, whove ratcheted up the price from $75 to, at this writing, a cool $89.70. Theres still time.

Link:

The ethics czar rules on another Liberal conflict of interest of interest - Maclean's

Letter to the editor: Kesich column reflects a liberal bias – Press Herald

Greg Kesichs View from here (Tale of two sandwich shops Sept. 6)sums up the liberal bias of your paper.

You say at the shop across the street, they dont care if I die. Im only surprised you didnt call them deplorables for not requiring masks.

In the more expensive, inefficient and confusing shop, you had to break the rules to get your meal. (No wonder you support Speaker Pelosi).

To show how open-minded you are, you wonder how someone applying for unemployment or Medicaid must feel. How about those trying to open a business, or run a pipeline in Maine? Or how about just trying to avoid bankruptcy with the governors draconian and last-minute edicts?

Maybe we should just roll back the clock to 1820 and rejoin Taxachussetts.

Bill ThorntonSaco

Invalid username/password.

Please check your email to confirm and complete your registration.

Use the form below to reset your password. When you've submitted your account email, we will send an email with a reset code.

See more here:

Letter to the editor: Kesich column reflects a liberal bias - Press Herald

Lord Bruce: Why a polarised world is in need of liberals – Press and Journal

Wake up and smell the coffee, said Ed Davey after his election as the new Liberal Democrat Party leader, making an honest assessment of the challenges the party faces building back support and representation.

Media reaction has been mixed. Some have acknowledged there are a significant number of Conservative-held seats where the Lib Dems are the challenger and which Labour, with its own mountain to climb, might quietly deign to wish them well. Others, including The P&Js political correspondent, Daniel ODonoghue, have suggested the party is flirting with irrelevance.

So let us pose one crucial question: Who needs a Liberal Party? Let me be quick with the answer. Whether you have voted Liberal Democrat or not, most of us do. We live in a liberal democracy. To suggest there is no room for a genuinely liberal party begs many questions about where we are heading. Philosophy apart, there are much more urgent and relevant reasons why a strong Liberal Democrat presence in our politics is needed.

Much of society has degenerated into angry, polarised camps, brooking no compromise and demanding people conform to their woke identity slogans or resign themselves to being the enemy.

This is not the stuff of a civilised society. It prevents genuine exchange of views. Evidence is discarded in favour of fake news and alternative facts, leading to rash decisions.

Just look at the state of the dominant parties. The Conservatives convulsed themselves over Brexit and have lost all coherence and consistency as well as many of their most thoughtful and experienced players. Their competence is questioned daily and their handling of the crisis and plans for recovery have faced ridicule. They are now proposing breaking international law, trashing the UKs reputation as a rational, reliable and pragmatic nation which honours its agreements and obligations. Cronyism is giving UK governance under the Tories the look of South American dictatorships of yore.

Labour, having abandoned the drift towards Marxist socialism, have elected a rational leader but have yet to prove they have shaken off Corbynism or accompanying anti-Semitism.

Buoyed by current polling, the SNP are becoming gung-ho about pushing for independence as fast as possible and at any cost, forcing the people of Scotland to choose between being Scottish and British and prejudicing our shared identity as both.

In an ever-more complex, challenging and divided world, once-great parties are offering simplistic, irrational, glib solutions. By the same token, the political debate has sought either to trash the Liberal Democrats or sneer at their irrelevance displaying uncertainty of intent. Why are other parties so splenetic about the Liberal Democrats? My guess is it is because we get in the way of simplistic, hardline, ideological identity politics.

Liberal Democrats believe in the freedom of individuals to express themselves in their own way, free from pressure to conform. We celebrate diversity and pluralism in an electoral system that has the deliberate intention of forcing people into camps.

Stuck in their trenches, nationalists and socialists try to taint us as Tories, who in turn accuse us of being fellow travellers with the left. We are accused of being at the same time both ruthlessly ambitious and disingenuously wishy-washy. Other parties just cannot get their heads around the idea that a party considers the evidence and looks for compromises that will bring people together rather than rejoice in dividing them.

In their heart of hearts, people know that voting for Trump, Johnson and, yes, even Sturgeon, will not deliver nirvana or the stable, hopeful world they crave for themselves and their families. Life is not that simple.

Ask people in Scotland, do we want to restore our once-great education system and give our children the skills and opportunity to deliver rewarding lives, not just economically but culturally, too? Would we like key public services to deliver according to the varied needs of the communities we live in?

Then ask them do we really believe we can do that if we break our family ties with the rest of the UK and divert our energies and resources to throwing off the established institutions we have to replicate from scratch at enormous cost in hardship and social division.

Britain is divided. Scotland is divided. Brexit has split us and the debate over independence is doing it in spades. Shouldnt politics be bigger and brighter than that?

Liberal Democrats recognise and celebrate diversity. Forcing people into opposing camps will never make society prosper. It will not make people happier nor more hopeful. On the contrary, the evidence is plain to see it makes people more bitter and angry.

Yet a popular slogan of liberals used to be Make love not war. We certainly need more of that today. Building bridges is more rewarding and satisfying than erecting barriers and building walls.

Liberalism was invented in Britain and has deep roots in Scotland. Far from flirting with irrelevance, we are inviting voters to throw off the false identities weighing them down and celebrate their personal independence and our societys diversity over conformity.

Lord Bruce of Bennachie is a former long-serving MP for Gordon and was chairman of the Scottish Liberal Democrats

Follow this link:

Lord Bruce: Why a polarised world is in need of liberals - Press and Journal

The top 5 liberal arts colleges of 2021, according to U.S. Newsand what it takes to get in – CNBC

On Monday, U.S. News & World Report released its annual ranking of the best colleges in the country, from large research universities to small liberal arts schools.

U.S. News calculates its ranking based on six categories which are each weighted differently: student outcomes (40%), faculty resources (20%), expert opinion (20%), financial resources (10%), student excellence (7%) and alumni giving (3%).

For the first time, U.S. News considered student debt in their ranking. The student outcomes category now takes into account the average amount of accumulated federal loan debt among full-time undergraduate borrowers at graduation and the percentage of full-time undergraduates in a graduating class who borrowed federal loans.

This year's top liberal arts colleges all boast small classroom sizes, including top-ranking Williams College, where 75% of classes have fewer than 20 students and just 3% of classes have 50 or more students.

Getting into one of these schools isn't easy. Admitted students boast strong high school records and high standardized test scores. However, many of these prestigious liberal arts schools have higher acceptance rates than similarly top-ranking universities.

For instance, while the top-ranked national university, Princeton, accepts just 6% of students, Williams accepts closer to 13% of applicants. Wellesley College, which tied for fourth place on U.S. News' ranking of liberal arts schools, has an acceptance rate of 22%.

The top-ranking liberal arts colleges also tended to score better than the top-ranked national universities on comparative measures of social mobility, that are designed to represent a school's likelihood of helping students improve their circumstances by considering the graduation rates and post-graduation performances of students who qualify for federal Pell Grants.

Here are the top 5 liberal arts colleges of 2021, according to U.S. News and what it takes to get in.

Williams College

Denis Tangney Jr | Getty Images

Average SAT score: 1410-1550

Share of first-year students in the top 10% of their high school class: 85%

Acceptance rate: 13%

Amherst College

Source: Amherst College

Average SAT score: 1410-1550

Share of first-year students in the top 10% of their high school class: 88%

Acceptance rate: 11%

Swarthmore College

aimintang | Getty Images

Average SAT score: 1380-1540

Share of first-year students in the top 10% of their high school class: 87%

Acceptance rate: 9%

Pomona College

Ted Soqui | Corbis | Getty Images

Average SAT score: 1390-1540

Share of first-year students in the top 10% of their high school class: 93%

Acceptance rate: 7%

Wellesley College

David L Ryan/The Boston Globe via Getty Images

Average SAT score: 1360-1530

Share of first-year students in the top 10% of their high school class: 79%

Acceptance rate: 22%

Don't miss:

Continued here:

The top 5 liberal arts colleges of 2021, according to U.S. Newsand what it takes to get in - CNBC

Should the Liberals call the Nationals’ bluff and bring about a great Australian realignment? – The Canberra Times

news, federal-politics, national party, liberal party, lnp, coalition, john barilaro, michael mccormack, conservatism

The National Party tail has been wagging the Liberal Party dog for too long. Events of the past couple of weeks show how the Liberals should deal with them (NSW) and how they should not (the federal level). When NSW Nationals leader John Barilaro threatened to move all his members, including ministers, to the crossbench unless the NSW government backed down on koala protection, Liberal Premier Gladys Berejiklian immediately called his bluff: do that and all National ministers would be sacked and the Liberals would govern alone. There would be no change to koala protection. This is what the Liberals should be doing federally with energy policy, climate change policy, water, species protection, land-clearing and the Great Barrier Reef, and should have done with same-sex marriage. They should tell the Nationals to stop wagging the dog. Besides, on virtually every issue over which the Nationals get obstinate, the Liberals could safely call their bluff and get Labor or Green support. But no, this week's decisions on energy policy show that the federal Liberals' decades-long supine appeasement of the Nationals has in fact transmogrified Robert Menzies' Liberal Party. The party of free enterprise, small government and individual freedom has now turned into little more than a parody of the National Party itself: anti-intellectual, science-denying hicks, revelling in big government subsidies to support unsustainable, unprofitable and technologically backward industries. The Morrison government's demand this week that private enterprise commits to building a gas-fired power station by April or the government would build one itself flies in the face of traditional Liberal Party philosophy that abhors public ownership of industry, picking winners (or in this case picking losers) and heavy-handed intervention in industry generally. It was made worse by its decision this week to divert renewable energy funding away from wind and solar and to boost funding for carbon capture. The only thing captured here is the integrity of the Liberal Party by the combined forces of the National Party and big industry. The political doublespeak could have come straight from George Orwell or a plot from Yes Minister. So, who is the more politically astute here, Berejiklian or Morrison? Who is serving the long-term interests of Australians? My guess is that no one would miss another gas-fired power station, but the death of up to 10,000 koalas in last summer's bushfires saddened the nation, and sent a warning to us all that the climate has already changed, and global heating will only get worse without concerted international efforts. The Morrison government appears to be too stupid, too ignorant or too wilfully beholden to benefactors to notice that there will be grave penalties if Australia does not pull its weight on carbon emissions. A Democratic Biden administration in Washington and the EU will impose trade penalties on nations that cheat on carbon emissions. Labor's wimpish acceptance of most of the government's pro-fossil-fuel policies is almost as shameful. In all, the koalas and the government-ordered gas-fired power station might mark a turning point in Australian politics. For a long time, the Nationals have managed to get most of their way, most of the time. The Nationals are socially conservative, support government handouts to rural and regional areas and detest any regulation that stops people exploiting the land. But only some Liberals share some of those beliefs. For a long time, the Nationals have thrived by performing an astonishing political juggling act. They get less than 5 per cent of the national vote outside Queensland (and say 10 per cent overall if you divide the LNP Queensland vote). Yet with that, over the years they have (among other things) told the Liberal Party who not to select as leader (1968), told the Liberal Party not to have a conscience vote on same-sex marriage, vetoed or watered down countless environmental measures and kept vast subsidies and handouts flowing to farmers, loggers and miners - all against the public interest. With this small share of the vote, the Nationals' leaders have continuously enjoyed the perks of ministerial power at the federal and state level. READ MORE: That should come at the cost of accepting cabinet solidarity and government unity, but that rarely stops the party allowing a few rabbits out of the burrow to voice public dissent to try to prove to the people of the bush that the Nationals are really getting results for them. The unifying force behind this juggling act of power, of course, has been ruthless self-interest. As Berejiklian found to her great benefit, if you ask a National to choose between principle and a ministerial office, self-interest will steer them in the direction of the ministerial office every time. Meanwhile, the wider community has changed. Australians have become more socially liberal (witness the marriage plebiscite), want more spent on urban infrastructure and have become more environmentally concerned. An increasing portion of Australians are concerned about climate change, energy policy, biodiversity, land clearing and water - issues the Nationals reject as matters of concern. The NSW Liberals appear to align themselves with the national sentiment. Labor, in the meantime, is performing its own juggling act on two fronts: at once trying to be as green as the Greens, while also trying to be a supporter of dirty industries and the unions and workers within them. Once the COVID-19 crisis is over, will a great Australian political realignment be far away? One side would contain the rural, science- and expert-despising, climate-change denying proponents of big government subsidies for dying industries. They will come from the Nationals, the branch-stacked Christian right of the Liberal Party, the Joel Fitzgibbon-style industrial wing of the Labor Party, One Nation, the Shooters and the Katters. The other side will contain moderate and free-enterprise Liberals, the socially progressive elements of Labor and the Greens. It might only take a few more incidents of bluff-calling or unconscionable climate science-denying policies for voters to seek political alignments with less internal contradiction.

https://nnimgt-a.akamaihd.net/transform/v1/crop/frm/fdcx/doc7c2e22mgqcos7s524hr.jpg/r2_453_4740_3130_w1200_h678_fmax.jpg

OPINION

September 19 2020 - 4:30AM

The National Party tail has been wagging the Liberal Party dog for too long. Events of the past couple of weeks show how the Liberals should deal with them (NSW) and how they should not (the federal level).

When NSW Nationals leader John Barilaro threatened to move all his members, including ministers, to the crossbench unless the NSW government backed down on koala protection, Liberal Premier Gladys Berejiklian immediately called his bluff: do that and all National ministers would be sacked and the Liberals would govern alone. There would be no change to koala protection.

This is what the Liberals should be doing federally with energy policy, climate change policy, water, species protection, land-clearing and the Great Barrier Reef, and should have done with same-sex marriage. They should tell the Nationals to stop wagging the dog.

Besides, on virtually every issue over which the Nationals get obstinate, the Liberals could safely call their bluff and get Labor or Green support.

But no, this week's decisions on energy policy show that the federal Liberals' decades-long supine appeasement of the Nationals has in fact transmogrified Robert Menzies' Liberal Party. The party of free enterprise, small government and individual freedom has now turned into little more than a parody of the National Party itself: anti-intellectual, science-denying hicks, revelling in big government subsidies to support unsustainable, unprofitable and technologically backward industries.

The Morrison government's demand this week that private enterprise commits to building a gas-fired power station by April or the government would build one itself flies in the face of traditional Liberal Party philosophy that abhors public ownership of industry, picking winners (or in this case picking losers) and heavy-handed intervention in industry generally.

It was made worse by its decision this week to divert renewable energy funding away from wind and solar and to boost funding for carbon capture. The only thing captured here is the integrity of the Liberal Party by the combined forces of the National Party and big industry. The political doublespeak could have come straight from George Orwell or a plot from Yes Minister.

Are that Nationals really comfortable being aligned with the more cosmopolitan, socially liberal elements of the NSW Liberal Party? Picture: Shutterstock

So, who is the more politically astute here, Berejiklian or Morrison? Who is serving the long-term interests of Australians?

My guess is that no one would miss another gas-fired power station, but the death of up to 10,000 koalas in last summer's bushfires saddened the nation, and sent a warning to us all that the climate has already changed, and global heating will only get worse without concerted international efforts.

The Morrison government appears to be too stupid, too ignorant or too wilfully beholden to benefactors to notice that there will be grave penalties if Australia does not pull its weight on carbon emissions. A Democratic Biden administration in Washington and the EU will impose trade penalties on nations that cheat on carbon emissions.

Labor's wimpish acceptance of most of the government's pro-fossil-fuel policies is almost as shameful.

In all, the koalas and the government-ordered gas-fired power station might mark a turning point in Australian politics.

For a long time, the Nationals have managed to get most of their way, most of the time. The Nationals are socially conservative, support government handouts to rural and regional areas and detest any regulation that stops people exploiting the land. But only some Liberals share some of those beliefs.

For a long time, the Nationals have thrived by performing an astonishing political juggling act. They get less than 5 per cent of the national vote outside Queensland (and say 10 per cent overall if you divide the LNP Queensland vote). Yet with that, over the years they have (among other things) told the Liberal Party who not to select as leader (1968), told the Liberal Party not to have a conscience vote on same-sex marriage, vetoed or watered down countless environmental measures and kept vast subsidies and handouts flowing to farmers, loggers and miners - all against the public interest.

With this small share of the vote, the Nationals' leaders have continuously enjoyed the perks of ministerial power at the federal and state level.

That should come at the cost of accepting cabinet solidarity and government unity, but that rarely stops the party allowing a few rabbits out of the burrow to voice public dissent to try to prove to the people of the bush that the Nationals are really getting results for them.

The unifying force behind this juggling act of power, of course, has been ruthless self-interest. As Berejiklian found to her great benefit, if you ask a National to choose between principle and a ministerial office, self-interest will steer them in the direction of the ministerial office every time.

Meanwhile, the wider community has changed. Australians have become more socially liberal (witness the marriage plebiscite), want more spent on urban infrastructure and have become more environmentally concerned.

An increasing portion of Australians are concerned about climate change, energy policy, biodiversity, land clearing and water - issues the Nationals reject as matters of concern. The NSW Liberals appear to align themselves with the national sentiment.

Labor, in the meantime, is performing its own juggling act on two fronts: at once trying to be as green as the Greens, while also trying to be a supporter of dirty industries and the unions and workers within them.

Once the COVID-19 crisis is over, will a great Australian political realignment be far away? One side would contain the rural, science- and expert-despising, climate-change denying proponents of big government subsidies for dying industries. They will come from the Nationals, the branch-stacked Christian right of the Liberal Party, the Joel Fitzgibbon-style industrial wing of the Labor Party, One Nation, the Shooters and the Katters.

The other side will contain moderate and free-enterprise Liberals, the socially progressive elements of Labor and the Greens. It might only take a few more incidents of bluff-calling or unconscionable climate science-denying policies for voters to seek political alignments with less internal contradiction.

See the rest here:

Should the Liberals call the Nationals' bluff and bring about a great Australian realignment? - The Canberra Times

Liberal arts in action: Release the raids – Hillsdale Collegian

Students from Galloway Residence pose with Niedfeldt Residences old homecoming banner before trading it for their flag. Courtesy | Seth Ramm

It is my intention to prove once and for all that Hillsdales male dormitory raid culture is necessary for a liberal arts education. I would like to begin by saying (keep your shirts on Simpsonites), that inter-dormitory rivalries are at the heart of student culture and campus will be worse off if raids and the events leading up to them are done away with for good.

Hillsdale College boasts one of the most unique academic experiences in America, and it is fitting that the student culture is just as unique. Though to some, the time-honored traditions of flag stealing, petty pranks, and meeting on the quad to beat each other senseless with foam-insulated PVC may seem childish and unnecessary, I would argue that behind this apparent childishness is hiding a complex and positive culture that fosters community and improves the spirit of campus.

There are many things more harrowing than your first few nights on campus (asking someone on a dining hall date, for instance), but being alone in a strange place filled with strangers is a difficult adjustment. This was the beginning of my freshman year, 2019. Like most others in my dormitory, I went to Welcome Party. I spent about an hour making small talk and participating in something that vaguely resembled dancing. It was not until I returned to the dormitory that the night got interesting.

I was informed that some nefarious actors had crept their way into Galloway Residence, my dormitory, and absconded with all our pillows. Every. Single. One. Left in their place was a cryptic notean apparent riddle that would reveal the location of our wayward pillows. Within five minutes, there were 20 to 30 people crammed wall to wall in the first-floor lobby of Galloway, all desperate to decipher the note and retrieve our pillows. I dont remember how long we spent racking our brains, consulting with upperclassmen, and trying to apply what little knowledge of Hillsdale we had to solving the problem.

We eventually did find our pillowssoaked in perfume and stuffed in contractor bags on the carpeted floor of the Olds Residence lobbybut most importantly, we found friends. That night, a simple prank brought the freshman residents together for a unique and unforgettable night.

It wasnt long after the pillow theft that I was introduced to raid culture. Simpson had of course engaged in their customary saber rattling the first week back on campus. Everyone knew that something was going to happen, but exactly when and what was a mystery.

That all changed on a dreary Friday night.

When word broke that a legion of Simpsonites was expected to march on Galloway, the night was transformed. Galloway men went to general quarters. Guys armed themselves with raid weapons stashed in various storage closets and rooms. The situation room was filled to the brim with Resident Assistants and upperclassmen analyzing intelligence and creating a defensive strategy. Someone was blaring John Williams Duel of the Fates from a speaker. The mood was electric.

Having no weapons of my own, I volunteered to join then-junior Philip Andrews on a reconnaissance mission to Simpson. Feeling like two spies sent on a death-defying, top secret mission, we stealthily approached Simpson, concealing ourselves in the bushes by the Searle Center. Though the headlights of passing cars illuminated our pasty faces, we somehow observed Simpson unseen. Even as the rain began to fall, we remained at our post, looking for anything that could confirm that Simpson was in fact preparing an attack. Though I believe that night did not end in a climactic battle (my memory could be wrong), just the threat of a Simpson raid created an unforgettable night.

It is fitting to conclude this defense of raid culture with a discussion of what happens when foam swords clash, when flags are stolen, when glory is earned, and when legends are made. The world of raiding is a curious one, filled with traditions, pageantry, and unwritten rules (which may not always be followed, but thats a subject for a whole other article). At least one opinion article has been written deriding such momentous displays of gallantry and courage as The Battle of Kappa Lawn and Land Battle. I was among those who valiantly took part in Land Battle last year. I was one of those whose behavior was considered by some to be childish, outrageous, uncouth, and (most heart wrenchingly) unbecoming of a potential future life partner. Allow me to condemn these slanders as untrue, unfounded, uninformed, unsubstantiated, unaccommodating, unadulterated, and above all false.

Yes, in the simplest, most elementary terms, Land Battle is simply a bunch of college men meeting to pummel one another with baby-proofed plumbing. But it is simultaneously so much more. There is a nearly universal thread that ties men together. It is a desire for competition, for glory earned. Its a desire to overcome overwhelming odds and achieve greatness.

To steal a term from the class Great Books I, men want kleosthe ancient Greek word meaning your renown or glory. Even in a simulated, controlled, low-stakes scenario like Land Battle, there exists kleos. There is a reason why movies such as Star Wars and Indiana Jones resonate almost universally with boys. Boys innately crave adventure. Boys want to be Indiana Jones; they want to be Luke Skywalker.

In a political climate where boys are told from kindergarten that they should behave more like the girls, to be quiet and studious, and to sit down and dont fidget, Hillsdale is a refreshing alternative. It is a place where boys are ablefor at least one nightto participate in an exercise of the masculinity that society is trying desperately to extinguish.

I can guarantee that I have never felt more alive than I did when I returned to my dormitory after Land Battle. It was already well past midnight and I had a calculus quiz in the morning, but I didnt care. I stayed up for hours after the event, reveling in what had happened.

The memory of that night will forever be in my consciousness. It is an experience unlike any other, and I believe it would be a disservice to the current and future freshmen of Hillsdale if they are never able to experience it.

Nick Treglia is a sophomore studying applied mathematics.

Originally posted here:

Liberal arts in action: Release the raids - Hillsdale Collegian

Farewell to the Liberals easy green revolution – Maclean’s

Paul Wells: Liberals are coming to terms with the realization that COVID-19 didn't cancel gravity, and that 'building back better' will, in fact, be hard work

Im grateful to the excellent Toronto Star columnist Heather Scoffield for noticing some fascinating comments Gerald Butts made on Monday.

Butts, of course, resigned in 2019 as Justin Trudeaus principal secretary and has been working since then as a consultant, climate-policy opinion leader and Twitter scold. He was a member of the Task Force for a Resilient Recovery, which spent the summer pushing hard on the build back better rhetoric that imagined the coronavirus pandemic as the dawn of a bold new green-energy future.

To say the least, excitement about a pandemic is counterintuitive. I started writing about the contradictions in June, when nameless Liberals were telling reporters, Itll be a good time to be a progressive government There are a lot of us who are dreaming big. I came back to the theme in August, when the PMO was setting Bill Morneau up as some kind of obstacle to their plans to build back better. And I wrote last week about the unsettling spectacle of Trudeau greeting Morneaus departure as, essentially, the end of history: We can choose to embrace bold new solutions to the challenges we face and refuse to be held back by old ways of thinking. As much as this pandemic is an unexpected challenge, it is also an unprecedented opportunity.

It was already clear last week that some of these considerations were starting to weigh, perhaps belatedly, on the Prime Minister and his advisors. Theres a sensitivity to being perceived to hijack the moment for a green recovery, a senior Liberal source told the CBCs David Cochrane. Boy, I sure hope there is.

Along comes Butts, who on Monday was addressing something called the Recovery Summit, an ambitious online virtual conference organized by some of the usual suspects, including the (Trudeauist) Canada2020 think tank in Ottawa and the (Clintonist) Center for American Progress in Washington.

Butts kicked off the proceedings by pouring industrial quantities of cold water on everyone.

Its important tounderstand and appreciate the level of anxiety that people are going through right now, he said. Conferences like this one were made by and for members of the progressive movement, he said. But in a clear warning to people who consider themselves members of that movement, he added, We depend on the support of the broad middle class and regular people. When we keep that support we form governments. And when we dont, we lose governments.

In an even clearer warning against the weird self-celebratory tone of some of the rhetoric from the government over the summer, he added:Its really important to emphasize what were doing and whom were doing it forrather than celebrate the fact that we are doing it.

I havent spoken to Butts since a few months before the SNC-Lavalin controversy wrecked his career in government, and I doubt he minds at all. So it was odd to hear him sounding warnings that resembled things Ive been writing for months. Its pure coincidence. It simply reflects the fact that to anyone with any distance from the government echo chamber, the Trudeau circles weirdly giddy triumphalism of recent months has got to sound jarring.

To put it diplomatically, I think that in any crisis situation, people will repurpose their pet projects as urgent and necessary responses to the crisis at hand, Butts said. And its vitally important that, when people are feeling as anxious as theyre feeling right now, we start the solutions from where they are and build up from there. And not arrive in the middle of their anxiety with a pre-existing solution that was developed and determined before the crisis thats arisen.

I know theres a widespread assumption that Butts never really left the Trudeau circle, that he remains the PMs puppeteer. I think thats farcical. Butts probably has an easier time getting Ben Chin to return a call than some of my colleagues do, but for the most part hes basically a sympathetic outsider whos watching the work of friends from a distance. His remarks amplify and consolidate things Dave Cochrane was already hearing from senior Liberals last week. Liberals are coming to terms with the realization that COVID-19 didnt cancel gravity or smite the foes of progress, as they define progress, from the earth. When Parliament returns next week, it will still be a venue of measurable personal risk for its occupants, like any large room for the foreseeable future. It will still contain more MPs who arent Liberals than MPs who are. It will be watched by a population that is worried, defensive, and incapable of ignoring risk for the sake of a resounding slogan. It speaks well of the Liberals that they have spent the summer working some goofy rhetoric out of their systems before returning to the real world.

This doesnt mean the government shouldnt pursue reductions in carbon emissions. They ran on promises to do so. They set ambitious targets, having spectacularly missed easier targets in the past. They faced concerted opposition and won. Working to reduce carbon emissions is necessary work with broad public support.

But it will be work. The clear implication of the dreaming big and unprecedented opportunity talk was that Liberals, including the Prime Minister, were talking themselves into believing school was out. That a global calamity would somehow transform hard work into a party, disarm the political opposition and, once againthis is a particularly sturdy fantasy of life in Trudeau-land, as Jane Philpott and Bill Morneau could tell youdelegitimize internal dissent.

It isnt so. Meeting the Liberals own climate goals will be hard work that will feel like hard work, if they care to take it up. The necessary changes will impose costs that will feel like costs before they provide benefits that feel like benefits. The very nature of this crisis will make building back better anything but a cakewalk.

First, because 2020 hasnt wiped out the former world. Building back better became a slogan a decade ago after earthquakes in New Zealand erased a lot of existing infrastructure. COVID-19 has been more like a neutron bomb, interrupting livelihoods but leaving neighbourhoods intact. If I had to build a new rail link from scratch between Toronto and Montreal, I might build something fancy. But the old one is still there. That makes a difference.

Second, because theres little likelihood of a sustained, long-term recovery like the one that characterized Canadas economy for 30 years after World War II, a comparison that was briefly fashionablea few months ago with the build-back-better set. The recoverys likely to be pretty quick, to pick up steam only after a vaccine or effective treatment becomes widespread, and to last only about as long as it takes to return to the status quo ante. Its fantasy to imagine miracle growth lasting the rest of everyones lifetime will take away costs and tradeoffs.

So the Trudeau governments duty to meet its climate targets remains, and so does just about all the difficulty of meeting them. Which means a central question about this Prime Ministerdoes he rise to challenges, ever? also remains.

Follow this link:

Farewell to the Liberals easy green revolution - Maclean's

Southern chiefs, Liberals accuse Manitoba government of withholding millions intended for kids in care – CBC.ca

The Southern Chiefs' Organization is calling the Manitoba government dishonourable in the way it treats vulnerable children in the province.

Southern Chiefs' OrganizationGrand Chief Jerry Danielssays Brian Pallister's Progressive Conservative government isattempting to present legislation that would prevent the government from being liable for taking hundreds of millions of dollarsintended for children in care.

Through the Children's Special Allowance, the federal government gives roughly $455 to $530 for each child in careto government child and family services agencies each month.

Beginning in 2010, Manitoba'sNDPgovernment began forcing the agencies to remit the money given, saying the province was paying for the maintenance of children in care and the money was therefore owed to them.

Thatmoney was put into general revenue. If agencies refused to remit it, the government withheld 20 per cent of the operating funds it gave the agency.

Daniels, who spoke at a press conference Wednesday alongsideManitoba Liberal Leader Dougald Lamontin the city's West End,says that between1999 and 2016, the NDP government diverted approximately $250 million. Since 2016, the PCs have diverted more than$100 million, Daniels and Lamont claimed.

The clawback prompted sixIndigenous child and family services agencies to suethe Manitoba government in 2018, but the SCO and Manitoba Liberals say the government has includedtwo provisions in its budget bill that would effectively end the lawsuit.

One clauseseeks to shield the province from being held responsible for clawing back the money earmarked for kids in care.

"Our children's resources are being stolen and Pallister is wanting to legislate himself out of being accountable for it,"Daniels said, calling the provisions in the budget bill"get-out-of-jail-free" clauses designed to shield the Tories.

"If the Pallister government believes they're right in taking the children's money, why does he not want the courts to decide?"

Unlike other bills, budget bills don't go before committees for public hearings, Lamont said, adding he is raising the issue now because the legislature is going back into session on Oct. 7.

"The Pallister PCs are using a budget bill to do an end-run around the courts," he added.

"The law is there to hold people to their word, and these measures set a terrible precedent."

Daniels and Lamont spoke on Wednesdayinfront of an Adele Avenue building, which was operated by the SouthernFirst Nations Network of Careas afacility for children in care until2019, when residents were evicted three months before the province introduceda bill in an effort to break its lease on the building.

The 20-year deal was signed in 2007under the NDP government to providean alternative to hotel placements of kids in care.

The province on Wednesday said it stepped in to help theSouthernFirst Nations Network of Care with the lease "at their request."

"They had signed an untendered, 20-year deal at a cost of $9.4 million and then determined the property would not meet their needs,"said a statement from Families Minister Heather Stefanson.

"The lease did not allow for an early termination, which meant a large portion of SFNNC's budget intended to support children and families was consumed by lease payments," the statement said, adding the government tried, unsuccessfully, to renegotiate the least.

"If the lease is not terminated, it will cost the province another $6.5 million over the next 10 years, plus maintenance costs," she said.

"We believe that is a complete waste of taxpayer money, which is why we are taking steps to end the lease."

The SCO and Liberals said the provincial government ordered the eviction of the home in February of 2019, and that children at the home were forced out in the middle of the night.

Stefanson's statement called that "a shameful falsehood." Plans werein place for the transition of every child at the Adele home, and notice was provided ahead of time, Stefanson said.

As for requiring agencies remit the Children's Special Allowance back to the province, that is ahistorical practice of the previous NDP government, Stefanson said, noting the proposed legislation will change that.

Since April 2019, agencies have beenretaining the allowance, as well as receivingsingle-envelope funding from the province, which will provide more than$400 million to the authorities and their agencies in 2020-21 a $15-million increase compared to what they received before, Stefansonsaid.

Read more:

Southern chiefs, Liberals accuse Manitoba government of withholding millions intended for kids in care - CBC.ca

Air Force Academy ranks among top 5 public liberal arts colleges in the nation: U.S. News & World Report – Colorado Springs Gazette

The U.S. Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs ranks third among the nation's public liberal art colleges, according to U.S. News & World Report's annual rankings released Monday.

The academy is outranked by two other colleges, which also happen to be service academies: the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, New York, and the Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland. The Naval Academy rose 11 spots to make the top 10 liberal arts colleges for the first time, according to a news release from the publication.

We are honored to continue being recognized as one of the top universities in the nation," Lt. Col. Mike Andrews, an academy spokesman, said in a statement to The Gazette. "Were very proud of our world-class faculty, and we continually strive to improve all facets at the academy not only in providing a first-class education to our cadets, but also in developing leaders of character worthy of serving our nation in the Air Force and Space Force.

The Air Force Academy ranks 28th overall among all national liberal arts colleges this year, up from 39th place last year. It also ranked third among public liberal arts colleges last year. Colorado College, also located in Colorado Springs, ranks 25th, up from 27th last year.

The liberal arts category has more than five hundred colleges nationally and it is an honor to be considered among the top 25," Mark Hatch, Colorado College Vice President for enrollment said in an emailed statement. "Furthermore, to be recognized for both innovation and excellence in teaching speaks loudly to our commitment to our students.

The rankings have been released annually for more than 30 years in an effort to drive transparency in higher education. They take into account factors such as graduation rates, graduate indebtedness and social mobility indicators, according to the publication.

View post:

Air Force Academy ranks among top 5 public liberal arts colleges in the nation: U.S. News & World Report - Colorado Springs Gazette

Your View: If Donald Trump is reelected, not only liberals, but we all will weep for our country – Bristol Herald Courier

I recently saw a bumper sticker that read Vote for Trump! Make Liberals Cry Again. Over the years the terms liberal and conservative seem to have lost their meanings. The dictionary defines a liberal as one who is open to new ideas and a conservative as one who wishes to preserve the gains of the past. I do not understand how these two terms have become associated with support or opposition to Donald Trump.

I think that most Americans, including myself, have personalities that encompass both of these values. The collapse of the coal industry and the devastating impact it has had on our local economy, combined with the COVID-19 pandemic crisis suggests to me that our region and our country desperately needs some new ideas.

I have a conservative side too. Growing up, Scouting was an important part of my life and helped to shape me into the man I am today. I earned both the Eagle Scout and God and Country awards. While the national Boy Scout organization has had its problems, the programs basic tenets of decency, honor, love of God and Country, continue to express what I believe represent the core of American values and the characteristics of effective leadership.

I will be voting for Joe Biden this year because I believe that our country needs new ideas; and yes, I am open to them. I will be voting for Joe Biden because I believe that he personifies the basic conservative American values of decency, honor, respect for God and country.

See the original post:

Your View: If Donald Trump is reelected, not only liberals, but we all will weep for our country - Bristol Herald Courier

The Rhetorical Weapons of Liberal Nimbyism – The New Republic

The West Side Community Organization describes its mission as twofold: to advocate for a restored quality of life for residents, visitors, and the small business community and advance safer and more compassionate policies regarding New Yorkers who are struggling with homelessness, mental illness, and drug addiction. As its first official order of business, the hastily assembled 501(c)4 launched a slick campaign to vilify 300 unhoused men in its Upper West Side neighborhood as dangerous criminals, then succeeded in evicting them from the hotel the city had converted to temporary housing in response to the pandemic. Apparently it was the $123,000-median-income families of the liberal Manhattan neighborhood who were the real New Yorkers struggling with (the sight of) homelessness.

Now the men will be going somewhere else. According to The New York Daily News, the city is in the process of relocating other unhoused people, many with disabilities, from a Midtown shelter in order to make room for the newly placeless former residents of the Upper West Side. In a statement on the citys relocation decision, the organizations attorney Randy Mastro called it a testament to community organizing. The group that came together under the banner of WSCO had started out as strangers, he continued, but came together as a stronger whole dedicated to saving their neighborhood.

The inviolable power of private property defines the actions and attitudes that can create and destroy communities; in liberal enclaves like New York, this is done with language. Slippery terms like neighborhood and community are quietly and expertly carved out to exclude the peoplenonwhite or ill or poorwho reduce property values. Evictions driven by wealthy residents and property owners become actions taken for the community, and for neighbors, rather than against them. The community came together rather than was torn apart. By cloaking the language of profit in the language of safety, these efforts are able to write out the poor and unhousedthose for whom the city is the most hostile and unsafefrom these most basic human identities.

One member of the neighborhood Facebook group that became WSCO told The New York Post that our community is terrified, angry and frightened. Their fear was palpable. Another resident who opposed sharing her neighborhood with unhoused others asserted that were a progressive-minded community and we tend to be sympathetic to the homeless, but with sex offenders, draw the line.

Elsewhere in New York, a woman whose neighborhood also saw an influx of unhoused people during the pandemic claimed that she never left her house without pepper spray. The founder of a civilian patrol group complained of all kinds of chaos assaults, vandalism, breaking and entering and lewd behavior. More than 160 business executives wrote to the mayor that there is widespread anxiety over public safety, cleanliness, and quality-of-life issues that are contributing to deteriorating conditions in commercial districts, demanding a restoration of the security and the livability of our communities. An Upper West Side petition declared, This situation is making life uncomfortable for residents and putting families, children, and the elderly in harms way.

Follow this link:

The Rhetorical Weapons of Liberal Nimbyism - The New Republic

How Liberals Opened the Door to Libertarian Economics – The New York Times

In the real world, where successful businesses are operated somewhere in the broad range between break-even and absolute-maximum profitability, there was and is always leeway for being a bit unnecessarily fair and responsible to accept slightly smaller profit margins to fulfill implicit obligations to employees, customers, communities, society at large, decency itself. But while economists still argue over Friedmans theories, his hot take 50 years ago for nonspecialists the Friedman doctrine turned a capitalist truism (profits are essential) into a simple-minded, unhinged, socially destructive monomania (only profits matter). In A Christmas Carol, Scrooge is redeemed when he abandons his nasty profit-mad view of life and his name became a synonym for miserliness. Likewise, a century later, in Its a Wonderful Life, the banker Mr. Potter is the evil, unredeemable, un-American villain. Here was Milton Friedman telling businesspeople that theyd been tricked by the liberal elite, that Scrooge and Potter were heroes they ought to emulate.

As for government regulation, Friedmans doctrine included a heads-I-win-tails-you-lose Catch-22. Any virtuous act by businesses beyond what the law requires is simpering folly, he insists, yet according to him too almost any government attempt to regulate business is the beginning of the end of freedom and democracy. Friedmans was a reductio ad absurdum purification of what had become a well-tempered, successful, increasingly fair free-market system. His vision was to revert to a fundamentalist capitalism from which a century of systemic interventions and buffers by democratic government and norms would be removed.

Friedman was horrified by the present climate of opinion, with its widespread aversion to capitalism, profits, the soulless corporation and so on. Indeed, a survey-research firm that had been asking people every year if they thought business tries to strike a fair balance between profits and the interests of the public found the number who agreed had dropped to 33 percent in 1970 from 70 percent in 1968. (By the late 70s it had bottomed out at 15 percent.) The very same month that The New Yorker filled a whole issue with excerpts from a liberal professors hurrah-for-revolution best seller, The Greening of America, Friedman delivered his counterrevolutionary economic manifesto to 1.5 million Times subscribers. Yet its self-righteous, hyperbolic, screw-the-Establishment confrontationalism is also a product of that 1970 moment: While Friedman was reacting against the surging support for social justice, he did so in the spirit of the late 1960s. Two ascendant countercultures, the hippies and the economic libertarians, in 1970 one large and one still tiny, shared a new ultraindividualism as a prime directive: If it feels good, do it; follow your bliss; find your own truth; and do your own thing were just nice utopian flip sides of every man for himself. For businessmen who felt demonized by public opinion and besieged by tougher government regulation for the last few years, the militancy of the Friedman doctrine in The New York freaking Times a year after Woodstock was thrilling. And then, as now, to get what they were mainly after politically superlow taxes, minimized regulation they exploited the voter backlash against street protests by aggrieved, angry younger Americans.

Just as America reached Peak Left, the Friedman doctrine and, a year later, a battle plan commissioned by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, drafted by the corporate lawyer Lewis Powell, quoting Friedman, just before he joined the Supreme Court became founding scripture for an economic crusade to discredit the New Deal consensus and rewrite the social contract. Democratic and liberal leaders, alas, didnt put up much of a fight. At the end of the 1970s, for instance, PBS commissioned a 10-episode series, Free to Choose, starring Friedman and funded by General Motors, General Mills and PepsiCo. A spokesperson for the show promised it would explain to viewers like you how weve become puppets of big government. And indeed, in that four-TV-channel era, Friedman used his noncommercial government-subsidized PBS platform to argue that the Food and Drug Administration, public schools, labor unions and federal taxes, among other btes noires, were bad for America. The series premiered in January 1980, just before the first Republican primaries, in which Ronald Reagan was a candidate. Of course, Reagan won the nomination and the presidency, after which Friedman patted himself on the back for his work with Goldwater and the epochal move away from New Deal ideas. As Friedman put it in 1982, you need ideas that are lying around his ideas as ready alternatives to existing policies, and then at a ripe moment the politically impossible becomes politically inevitable.

Throughout big business and finance and much of conventional wisdom, the Friedman doctrine came to mean that the pursuit of absolutely maximum profit for your company and yourself trumped every other value or motive, greed-is-good definitively replacing concern for the common good. A result was an American economy and culture driven by selfishness, callousness and recklessness. Before long, a big Hollywood movies most memorable scene was a kind of dramatization of the Friedman doctrine, Libertarian Economics for Dummies. The point is, ladies and gentlemen, sexy Gordon Gekko told his ecstatic fellow stockholders, that greed for lack of a better word is good. Greed is right. Greed works. And greed, he promised, would make America great again.

In 1976, Friedman became the first Chicago school economist to win a Nobel Prize. That same year, two members of the University of Rochester business-school faculty published a 55-page paper conceived as an operational elaboration of the Friedman doctrine. Theory of the Firm made righteous greed seem scientific, with equations and language of the managers indifference curve is tangent to a line with slope equal to u kind. Its big point was that if corporate executives are mere salarymen rather than owners of company stock, theyll overspend on charitable contributions, get lax on employee discipline, concern themselves too much about personal relations (love, respect, etc.) with employees and the attractiveness of the secretarial staff. It is one of the most-cited economics papers ever. The professors also wrote a shorter, more accessible follow-up that ditched the math and the pretense of scholarly neutrality: big business has been cast in the role of villain by consumer advocates, environmentalists and the like, who want to spread the clich that corporations have too much power.

The modern understanding of how corporate managers should run companies, an article in The Harvard Business Review declared in 2012, has been defined to a large extent by that original Friedman-doctrine-inspired paper from 1976. It went beyond doctrinal Friedmania that companies must absolutely maximize profit, now positing as a kind of mathematical fact that stock price, a much less objective measure, was the only meaningful corporate metric. Soon a Reagan-administration S.E.C. rule change effectively gave free rein to public companies, for the first time since the New Deal, to buy up shares of their own stock on the open market in order to jack up the price. U.S. executive pay, meanwhile, shifted from consisting mainly of salary and bonus to mainly stock and stock options. Astonishingly, stock buybacks eventually consumed most of the earnings of S&P 500 companies, as they still do. So here we are with a re-engineered system in which just the richest 10th of us have 84 percent of all stock shares owned by Americans, and a ravaged economy in which the stock market is close to an all-time high.

Original post:

How Liberals Opened the Door to Libertarian Economics - The New York Times

End of the liberal international order? – The Express Tribune

Karl Marx in his book Das Capital (1864) wrote how capitalism carries the seeds of its own destruction and how communist societies will prevail. Following the powerful Russian Revolution in 1917 which sent shockwaves to democratic nations in Europe and the Pacific liberal democracy faced a major peer competitor. In 1939 again, when fascism spread like wildfire in Europe, it only added more fuel to the fire for the already struggling liberal democracy. At that moment in history, there were three powerful ideologies fighting for supremacy. After the intense World War II in which nuclear weapons were used on civilian populations for the first time in history, liberal democracy triumphed in 1945. This was the official start of the Liberal Western Order; with the United States in the forefront as its leader in the West.

In 1989 again, the US defeated the disintegrated Soviet Union and its communist ideology. It was this when the start of the International Liberal Order officially kicked off. The World Order had transformed from Liberal Western Order to Liberal International Order in a matter of a few decades. It became an International Order not in 1945 but after the end of the Cold War when we witnessed the start of the unipolar world. Liberal democracy then became the linchpin of political institutions. Former UK prime minister Tony Blair had famously quoted, We are all liberal internationalists now.

Today, the Covid-19 pandemic has exposed new fault-lines in the international political arena where shades of the Liberal International Order are nowhere to be seen. But even before the pandemic had unleashed its destructive potential, the existing world order was already in danger. There are four main reasons which suggest why the Liberal International Order was already under retreat.

First, the Liberal International Order had two main goals: to globalise economy, and to liberalise politics. The US had made its long-term foreign policy mission to transform dictatorships and socialist countries into democracies. Professor at the University of Chicago, John Mearsheimer said that the US even wanted to spread liberal democracy in China which was too ambitious even by their standards. Moreover, if we look at the Liberal International Orders track record since the 1990s, it has been failing in quite some aspects with numerous interventions in the Middle East, failure in Afghanistan and also with illiberal values being rampant at home (in the US). The US, being the home of democracy, has been struggling to steer the wheel of the international liberal order at home and abroad.

Second, the elections of Trump and Brexit in 2016 had already put a big question mark on the existing liberal order. With a referendum in Europe and a presidential election in the US, liberal democracy as weve known it seems to have finally and dramatically, collapsed at its birthplace. Trumps policies at home and abroad have been exactly opposite of what the international liberal order had been preaching in the previous decades. The UKs decision to depart from the EU was too against the spirit of the existing World Order which focused on globalising the economy.

Third, the dawn of the industrial revolution came with exciting new opportunities for the world but at the same time gave life to a massive increase in greenhouse gases (GHGs) into our atmosphere, which today is causing ecological disruption. Accelerated climate change is a borderless challenge which must be countered in coordinated forums. However, the US being the prime architect of the Liberal International Order pulled out from the historic Paris Agreement of 2015 which vowed to bring all countries together in a bid to fight ecological disruption.

Fourth, sustaining a social contract between the government and its citizens is at the heart of what liberal democracy preaches. What liberalism has been preaching for many centuries is to empower the common man and reduce the social inequality gap. But today, social inequality breaks all numbers and the picture remains quite bleak. According to a recent Oxfam report on social inequality, 82% of the wealth generated in the world is owned by the 1%. It is quite clear that capitalism and liberal democracy has exacerbated social inequality around the globe rather than empowering the vulnerable and poor.

Today, there is no running away from the fact that the Covid-19 crisis has exposed many vulnerabilities of our political institutions. Globally, we are experiencing choking health systems, crippling economies, and little cooperation among states. During this pandemic, which has taken the lives and livelihoods of millions, the US had opted to cut the World Health Organizations (WHO) funding. Again, this action was truly against the spirit of liberal democracy.

In this era of political and economic uncertainty, there are no overnight or quick fixes, and that is why there is a dire need of a new social contract now more than ever. The current system has widened the social inequality gap, ignored the climate crisis, and placed nations at loggerheads. At a national level, political disunity has hampered progress of many nations. The WHO director general had clearly stated that national unity is key in combatting the Covid-19 pandemic. The same concept applies for all the other hurdles we are facing.

Published in The Express Tribune, September 15th, 2020.

Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.

Visit link:

End of the liberal international order? - The Express Tribune

Ted Cruz: ‘Many liberal males never grow balls’ | TheHill – The Hill

Republican Sen. Ted Cruz (Texas) on Friday responded to a tweet about a segment on gender reveal parties from Trevor NoahTrevor NoahTed Cruz: 'Many liberal males never grow balls' Overnight Defense: House chair announces contempt proceeding against Pompeo | Top general says military has no role in election disputes | Appeal court rejects due process rights for Gitmo detainees Top general: Military will play no role in resolving any electoral dispute MOREs The Daily Show, saying many liberal males never grow balls.

Cruz wrote his comment in a retweet of an article from conservative news website The Daily Wire, which critiqued Noah for railing against gender reveal parties.

A fair point. Many liberal males never grow balls.... https://t.co/FhHmIPFUpJ

In Tuesdays episode of the Comedy Central show, Noah referenced the fact that one of the three major wildfires currently burning in California was sparked by a gender reveal party.Noah said he believed the practice of celebrating a babys gender was outdated.

"Celebrating a babys genitalia is starting to feel very outdated," Noah said. "Like, given everything were learning about gender, gender reveal parties should only happen when the child is old enough to know their actual gender."

The Daily Wire article criticizes Noah for separating biological sex from gender, arguing instead that the two are inextricably connected. Gender identity has become increasingly accepted by many in recent years to include the gender characteristics one uses to identify themselves, which may differ from their biological sex at birth.

Cruz has previously used gender identity as a means to criticize Democrats, with a March tweet from the senatorjoking that Bernie identifies as every gender, simultaneously.

Mark, thats not fair. Bernie identifies as every gender, simultaneously. https://t.co/EQsCCld7Mu

In the past, Cruz has been particularly vocal about his conservative views on gender, including through his support for laws that do not allow gender-neutral bathrooms. The senator also tweeted in 2019 that parents allowing young children to undergo a gender transition is child abuse.

The rest is here:

Ted Cruz: 'Many liberal males never grow balls' | TheHill - The Hill


12345...102030...