What, pray tell, had roused freedom from its slumber?

The Supreme Courts Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision, which ruled that corporations have First Amendment rights. I thought then, like most conservatives, that the court was correct. Unlike many these days, I still do. The New York Times Co. has every right to argue for its preferred policies, and so does Koch Industries.

Its difficult to exaggerate how committed the right once was to this principle and how much it appalled the left. Masterpiece Cakeshop, we conservatives contended, had every right not to be compelled to make gay wedding cakes because of the owners religious beliefs. Hobby Lobby had a First Amendment right to defy provisions of the Affordable Care Act that violated its religious freedom. We won both arguments at the Supreme Court.

That era is now officially over.

Florida recently passed the Parental Rights in Education bill (tendentiously called the Dont Say Gay law by detractors). The Walt Disney Company, under CEO Bob Chapek, tried to stay out of the controversy. But a pincer movement of internal and external political pressure forced the company to publicly oppose the bill.

Worse, a video of a Disney meeting at which executives boasted of their not at all secret agenda to incorporate gay and transgender themes into Disney content was leaked at the worst possible moment. The very online right was already in a full-blown moral panic about pedophilia, basically holding that anyone who opposed the bill was either a groomer or groomer friendly. (Once a term for adults who manipulate underage children for sexual abuse, groomer suddenly meant dissenters from a moral crusade.)

Against the broader backdrop of the populist fatalism of the Trump era, which holds that conservatives never win when they play by the rules, it was something of a perfect storm.

Florida Republicans, led by Gov. Ron DeSantis, voted to strip Walt Disney World of its special status under something called the Reedy Creek Improvement District. Crafted by Republicans in 1967, the improvement district deal exempted Disney World from zoning and tax laws in exchange for Disney transforming a massive amount of swampy land into the Magic Kingdom and running it without taxpayer money. Economically and politically, it was win-win for both Disney and Floridauntil last week, when a remarkable number of politicians suddenly embraced a purist libertarian opposition to such public-private partnerships of which there are more than 1,000 in Florida.

Of course, Orlando International Airport and Daytona International Speedway, with similar exemptions, will be fine, because the libertarian arguments are entirely pretextual. This was about punishing Disney. Floridas lieutenant governor even admits that if Disney simply changed its politics, everything could go back to normal. Oh, is that all?

The view on the right is that DeSantis is a courageous brawler, beating back a behemoth of woke capitalism. Its certainly true that DeSantis comes out a winner on the national stage as he contemplates a presidential run in 2024.

I will also concede that DeSantis supporters have a point. If corporations will let themselves be bullied out of their lanes by the left, they shouldnt be surprised if they invite retaliation from the right. As problematic as I find this whole spectacle, it would be a good thing if corporations thought twice about picking sides in the culture war. As Michael Jordan once said, Republicans buy sneakers too.

But whether the costs outweigh the benefits is unknowable, particularly in a climate in which what constitutes winning is redefined on the fly by Twitter mobs. After all, as National Reviews Charlie Cooke notes, DeSantis had already won: Disney took its shot at the Florida parental rights bill, and even though all of its sponsors were recipients of Disneys political contributions, Disney lost. But the rights equivalent of Twitter-addicted woke activists wanted a pound of Mouse flesh.

Privately, some defenders say the Reedy Creek Improvement District rescission, which doesnt go into effect until next year, will never happen. Saner heads will prevail, opting not to shift massive burdens onto county governments and taxpayers (this would explain why Disney has largely stayed mum). But that theory assumes DeSantis is the mobs master, not its servant.

And even ifa big ifcorporate America takes the right lessons here, theres no chance activists on the left or right will, at least for the foreseeable future. When you reward mobs, you get more mobs.

More:

DeSantis Beat DisneyThen the Mob Wanted More - The Dispatch

Age: 68

Occupation: Nebraska Lieutenant Governor since 2013

Political party: Republican

Mike Foley was the state auditor for two terms then ran for governor in 2014, lost to Pete Ricketts, and was appointed by Ricketts as his running mate to become the current lieutenant governor. Foley couldve run for governor again, but he said he decided to run for auditor because of his skills and interests.

"I enjoyed my work as state auditor when I previously held that position. I was a very aggressive state auditor, worked very hard to expose waste, fraud inefficiency in government operations and root that out of the system," he said.

Foley intends to focus on the largest agency in state government, the Department of Health and Human Services, if elected. He said hes in the best position to be state auditor because he understands the complexities of state government and has worked there for 22 years, including six years in the Legislature.

"I look forward to returning to that [auditor's] office where I can do some more good work for the people of Nebraska, to protect their hard earned tax dollars from being wasted," he said.

Optometrist Katrina Tomsen of Upland is also running for the seat unopposed with the libertarian party.

Original post:

Meet the Republican Candidates for State Auditor and Treasurer - Nebraska Public Media | News

Thursday marks the beginning of early voting during North Carolinas 2022 primary election cycle. The delayed timeline from redistricting lawsuits created a unique timeline and some voters may be returning to cast their ballots in-person for the first time since the COVID-19 pandemic.

Heres what you need to know about early voting before casting your ballot in Orange County.

This early voting period, there are five polling places in Orange County: Orange Works at Hillsborough Commons, Carrboro Town Hall Complex, Chapel of the Cross, Efland Ruritan Club and Seymour Senior Center. The Orange County Board of Elections office will not be an early voting site.

(Via Orange County Board of Elections)

Early voting runs from April 28 through May 14. Weekday early voting is open 8 a.m. to 7:30 p.m. On Sunday, May 1 the precincts will be open from 12 p.m. to 4 p.m., and Saturday, May 7 and Saturday, May 14 voting will be open 8 a.m. to 3 p.m. There is no early voting Saturday, April 30 or Sunday, May 8.

Some Chapel Hill voters may vote in Chatham or Durham counties. To learn more about early voting in Chatham County, click here. To learn more about early voting in Durham County, click here.

On Election Day, Tuesday May 17, polling places are open 6:30 a.m. until 7:30 p.m. During Election Day voters must vote at their assigned precinct.

Voters can register to vote at an early voting location. Voters must be a resident of North Carolina and their respective county for at least 30 days prior to the election. Additionally, voters who turn 18 years old by the general election can vote during the primary.

North Carolina has semi-closed primaries. This means unaffiliated voters may choose a Democrat, Republican or Libertarian ballot. Voters registered as Democrat, Republican or Libertarian will receive the ballot matching their voter registration.

Voters will see non-partisan races, like the Carrboro Town Council special election and Orange County Schools Board of Education, on their ballot regardless of political affiliation.

Voters can check their registration, see their assigned polling place, and view a sample ballothere.

All voters must have registered to vote at their current address in the county by Friday, April 22 in order to cast their ballots on Election Day.

A photo ID is not required for voting in North Carolina this election cycle.

Here are some select races Orange and Chatham county voters will see in their ballots. Candidates are listed in alphabetical order by first name and parties in alphabetical order. Incumbents in local races have their names bolded.

To see a sample ballot for the 2022 primary elections, visit this North Carolina Board of Elections web page.

North Carolinas primary election day is set for Tuesday, May 17, with early voting starting on Thursday, April 28.

For more election coverage and candidate introductions, visit ChapelborosLocal Election Coverage page.

Chapelboro.comdoes not charge subscription fees. You can support local journalism and our mission to serve the community.Contribute today every single dollar matters.

Related

Link:

Early Voting Starts Thursday: Here's Where to Go in Orange County - Chapelboro.com

Freedom is awaking from its coma today because of a huge, huge, huge Supreme Court decision huge, Rush Limbaugh declared in 2010. I cannot tell you how big this is.

What, pray tell, had roused freedom from its slumber?

The Supreme Courts Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission decision, which ruled that corporations have 1st Amendment rights. I thought then, like most conservatives, that the court was correct. Unlike many these days, I still do. The New York Times Inc. has every right to argue for its preferred policies, and so does Koch Inc.

Its difficult to exaggerate how committed the right once was to this principle and how much it appalled the left. Masterpiece Cakeshop, we conservatives contended, had every right not to be compelled to make gay wedding cakes because of the owners religious beliefs. Hobby Lobby had a 1st Amendment right to defy provisions of the Affordable Care Act that violated its religious freedom. We won both arguments at the Supreme Court.

That era is now officially over.

Florida recently passed the Parental Rights in Education bill (tendentiously called the Dont Say Gay law by detractors). The Disney Co., under Chief Executive Bob Chapek, tried to stay out of the controversy. But a pincer movement of internal and external political pressure forced the company to publicly oppose the bill.

Worse, a video of a Disney meeting at which executives boasted of their not at all secret agenda to incorporate gay and transgender themes into Disney content was leaked at the worst possible moment. The very online right was already in a full-blown moral panic about pedophilia, basically holding that anyone who opposed the bill was either a groomer or groomer friendly. (Once a term for adults who manipulate underage children for sexual abuse, groomer suddenly meant dissenters from a moral crusade.)

Against the broader backdrop of the populist fatalism of the Trump era, which holds that conservatives never win when they play by the rules, it was something of a perfect storm.

Florida Republicans, led by Gov. Ron DeSantis, voted to strip Disney World of its special status under something called the Reedy Creek Improvement District. Crafted by Republicans in 1968, the improvement district deal exempted Disney World from zoning and tax laws in exchange for Disney transforming a massive amount of swampy land into the Magic Kingdom and running it without taxpayer money. Economically and politically, it was win-win for both Disney and Florida until last week, when a remarkable number of politicians suddenly embraced a purist libertarian opposition to such public-private partnerships of which there are over a thousand in Florida.

Of course, Orlando International Airport and Daytona International Speedway, with similar exemptions, will be fine, because the libertarian arguments are entirely pretextual. This was about punishing Disney. Floridas lieutenant governor even admits that if Disney simply changed its politics, everything could go back to normal. Oh, is that all?

The view on the right is that DeSantis is a courageous brawler, beating back a behemoth of woke capitalism. Its certainly true that DeSantis comes out a winner on the national stage as he contemplates a presidential run in 2024.

I will also concede that DeSantis supporters have a point. If corporations will let themselves be bullied out of their lanes by the left, they shouldnt be surprised if they invite retaliation from the right. As problematic as I find this whole spectacle, it would be a good thing if corporations thought twice about picking sides in the culture war. As Michael Jordan once said, Republicans buy sneakers too.

But whether the costs outweigh the benefits is unknowable, particularly in a climate in which what constitutes winning is redefined on-the-fly by Twitter mobs. After all, as National Reviews Charlie Cooke notes, DeSantis had already won: Disney took its shot at the Florida parental rights bill, and even though all of its sponsors were recipients of Disneys political contributions, Disney lost. But the rights equivalent of Twitter-addicted woke activists wanted a pound of Mouse flesh.

Privately, some defenders say the Reedy Creek Improvement District recission, which doesnt go into effect until next year, will never happen. Saner heads will prevail, opting not to shift massive burdens onto county governments and taxpayers (this would explain why Disney has largely stayed mum). But that theory assumes DeSantis is the mobs master, not its servant.

And even if a big if corporate America takes the right lessons here, theres no chance activists on the left or right will, at least for the foreseeable future. When you reward mobs, you get more mobs.

@JonahDispatch

Read the rest here:

Jonah Goldberg: The right-wing mob gets its pound of Mouse flesh from Disney -- or does it? - Los Angeles Times

Monday, April 25th 2022 - 20:55 UTC Argentina's peso is not even good as fertilizer, Milei explained

Argentine Libertarian Deputy Javier Milei Sunday insisted on dollarizing the country's economy during a rally in Mendoza where he also vowed that such would be his first step if elected President in 2023.

Milei also said the Argentine peso was the currency of the caste, because it loses its purchasing power every minute due to inflation, causing additional trouble to the working class.

The economist Milei's views are not matched by those of many of his colleagues who have rejected dollarizing and warned of the negative consequences such a move would have.

We have to get rid of the peso garbage, which is not even good for fertilizer, Milei said at Mendoza's O'Higgins Park while giving a masterclass attended by over 12,000 people.

That bunch of thieves said that the peso is to have sovereignty. You talk about sovereignty when you want the people to be slaves, Milei warned after reviewing the history of inflation and income redistribution policies.

Milei also explained he would start by moving from fractional banking to an anti-corruption system with Simons banking to then develop a dollarization strategy.

The only ones who will lose with these measures are the corrupt politicians of the caste, Milei promised.

We do not need a lender of last resort with Simons banking. Politicians, stop lying to the people, stop putting fear in them, he said.

Milei also said he believed the country was rich in lack of opportunities, due to the filthy political caste we have, which expels our children, which led to increasing migration. To reverse that trend, Milei insisted the only solution is to go back to the ideas of freedom and get the State out of the way.

The Libertarian Deputy also referred to his colleagues as econochantas (bogus experts) who are functional to the caste and who exist on both sides of the 'crack'.

Read the rest here:

Milei gets 12000 people to attend class on inflation in Mendoza - MercoPress

Longtime lawmaker Lester Jackson is leaving the Senate, setting up a four-candidate race to succeed him

Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger on the lingering effects of 2020 election

Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger talks about how the results of the 2020 election and lawsuits have lingered in state politics ever since.

Savannah Morning News

Around the Georgia Capitol, the Savannah senators are among the most familiar faces in the building.

Lester Jackson (D-District 2) has served in the Georgia General Assembly for 24 years and previously chaired the Georgia Legislative Black Caucus. Ben Watson (R-District 2) joined the Legislature in 2011 and chairs one of the Senates highest-profile committees, Health and Human Services.

Georgia Senate: After 24 years, Lester Jackson completes his final session as a state representative

The 2022 election will introduce at least two new faces to the ranks of Savannah-area members.

Watson is likely to return, but Jackson isnt running for re-election to his Senate seat, choosing instead to mount a statewide campaign for Georgia Labor commissioner. Additionally, the 2021 redistricting session added a third Senate district, District 4, to Chatham County.

Georgia Senate map surprise: Chatham adds third Senate post as part of redistricting

Two Democrats are challenging Watson while four candidates - two Democrats, two Republicans - are running for Jacksons open seat. Republican Billy Hickman, who resides in Statesboro, is running unopposed in District 4 and will represent a swath of West Chatham residents.

That primary will be held on May 24, with early voting beginning May 2.

Heres a look at the candidates for the local Georgia Senate posts.

Story continues below

Savannah-area election races

U.S. House, District 1

Georgia General Assembly, House races

Georgia General Assembly, Senate races

Georgia voting laws, what you need to know

Jones serves as the chairman of the Chatham Democratic Committee and previously sat on the Chatham County Commission. He mounted an unsuccessful campaign for Chatham Commission chairman in 2020, losing to Chester Ellis.

Niquette previously ran for the Georgia House in 2020, mounting an unsuccessful challenge for the seat held by Rep. Ron Stephens. He is campaigning on updating technology in public schools, protecting the environment, expanding Medicaid and criminal justice reform.

A physician and the brother-in-law of former U.S. Congressman Jack Kingston, Watson served two terms in the Georgia House before being elected to the Georgia Senate. He has championed health care reform throughout his political career.

Mallow joined the Georgia House in 2021 after winning a 2020 election runoff by 19 votes. A district executive with the Boy Scouts of America, Mallow is a champion for Georgias youth and also advocates for health care reform and improving mental health services

Scott is a district manager for Advance Auto Parts and a ministry leader with Overcoming by Faith church. He ran unsuccessfully for a Chatham County Commission post in the 2020 election.

Yasger is a U.S. Army veteran and member of the Georgia Army National Guard. His platform includes many Libertarian-leaning views, such as decriminalization of marijuana. He ran for U.S. House in 2020, finishing third in the Republican primary.

Young switched parties to run for the Senate post after a failed bid to win a Georgia House seat in 2020 and 2021 elections. He is a military veteran and a retired vending machine business owner.

A Statesboro accountant, Hickman joined the Georgia General Assembly in 2020 by winning the seat long held by Georgia political Icon Jack Hill. Hickman said he feels a strong connection to Chatham County, as his wife is a native of Bloomingdale.

Read the rest here:

Who is running for Georgia Senate in the 2022 primary? - Savannah Morning News

While the talk is about free markets and private propertyand it is more respectable than it was a few decades ago to defend near-complete laissez-fairethe bulk of the intellectual community almost automatically favors any expansion of government power so long as it is advertised as a way to protect individuals from big bad corporations, relieve poverty, protect the environment, or promote equality.

Milton Friedman, introduction to The Road to Serfdom 50th-anniversary edition, 1994

Originally published at Josiah Barlett Center for Public Policy

The right-of-center movement in the United States is shifting toward statism in a way even many of its self-proclaimed liberty activists dont realize.

Responding to relentless left-wing provocation, people on the right think theyre defending liberty by using the state to block or punish private-sector actions they dislike. Instead, theyre expanding state control over private behavior.

The Live free or die state is not immune to this shift. Here, lawmakers who believe themselves to be righteous champions of liberty are trying to extend state control over private contracts and decisions.

To pick one example, considerHouse Bill 1210, relative to exemptions from vaccine mandates. The bill requires any employer that receives any public funds, including grants or contracts, to allow a right of conscience exemption from vaccination.

Framed as a defense of individual liberty, the bill actually would reduce liberty.

If enacted, it would weaken the right of free individuals to associate only with others who accept their dedication to fighting infectious diseases through vaccination.

Vaccination status is not an immutable characteristic like race or sex. It is a choice, and not a purely individualistic one. It can have profound, even life or death, consequences for others.

Were the bill to pass, health care facilities such as nursing homes and hospitals would be required by law to hire employees who refuse to vaccinate themselves against any and all infectious diseases. The bill covers all vaccines, not just those for COVID-19.

The bill restricts freedom of association in the name of bodily integrity. But someone who refuses to vaccinate is making a choice to give up bodily integrity.

A virus is a foreign living organism that invades a body and uses it as a host. Viruses cannot replicate by themselves. They infect host cells and use them for reproduction, usually killing them in the process. Vaccines are designed to protect cells against invasion and destruction by alien organisms. Their purpose is to preserve bodily integrity.

Viruses arent libertarian. Theyll infect anyone they can. People have a right to choose to associate with others who agree to vaccinate. This bill would violate that right in pursuit of a non-existent right to join a group without agreeing to its terms.

Conservatives can easily see that it would be a violation of individual rights for the state to require religious employers or ideological organizations to hire anyone regardless of their beliefs. This bill violates the freedom of association in a similar way.

Should HB 1210 become law, a cancer patient would be unable to seek medical care in New Hampshire in a facility with a fully vaccinated staff. Thats not protecting peoples rights. Its forcing people to associate with others who might be a danger to themselves.

The libertarian saying that your rights end where my nose begins applies here. Going unvaccinated (or not) is not a lifestyle choice like getting tattooed or piercing ones nose. It can have a direct, potentially catastrophic effect on others. And others have a right to protect themselves against that through their associations.

LikeHouse Bill 1469, which seeks to restrict the free association rights of all New Hampshire businesses under the guise of regulating banks, HB 1210 would expand the power of the state to regulate economic transactions in new ways.

Supporters of such market interventions honestly think they are taking steps to protect individuals. But theyre mistaken. Unwittingly, they are moving to empower collectivism and weaken the liberty of the individual.

See more here:

From Vaccines to Banks, NH Sees Misguided Efforts To Restrict Freedom in the Name of Liberty - NH Journal

The 2022 midterm elections are rapidly approaching and there is a lot on the line this November. Democrats may have come into 2021 with a majority, but the last year and a half has included a series of unfortunate events for the party and weak approval ratings of the President. This has left the republican party confident and optimistic going into the election cycle.

There are a lot of important issues at play in this election. The ever-looming and evolving COVID-19 pandemic and how it continues to be handled is huge on voters minds. The current astronomical gas prices, inflation and the economy in general are also a top priority.

While these issues can have major impacts on the daily lives of many Americans, they are not the only issues voters care about. Marijuana legalization continues to be a major political issue, and for many voters it is currently a top priority this election season. In fact,according to a recentpoll, the majority of democratic voters think passing a bill to legalize marijuana is an important or top priority.

RELATED:What Do Republicans Need In Cannabis Legalization Bill To Support It?

There areseveral statesthat may have marijuana ballot-measures in November. Maryland, Missouri, Ohio and South Dakota are just a few states where an important vote will appear on the ballot, which means marijuana legalization will likely play an even larger role in these states elections.

Being a democratic politician no longer guarantees the support of cannabis enthusiasts. Many voters are looking for real action, and soon. Democrats, starting with President Biden, must lead on cannabis policy or risk ceding the very real voter enthusiasm it inspires to more libertarian voices,according toFortune. Time is running out for Democrats to make a strong stand on cannabis legalization before Republicans eventually do so on their own.

It is not only democrats who are interested in marijuana legalization.The latest Galluppolldata suggests that 2 in every 3 Americans support the legalization of marijuana. These record high numbers further show that marijuana is not a partisan issue. Any politician who takes a strong stance against marijuana, or one who drags their feet in the legalization process, risks being ousted from their role if their district resides in a competitive area.

RELATED:More Red States Are Going Wild For Weed

Conservatives have noticed this inaction, and,according to Forbes, some Republicans are starting to take action of their own that could eventually lead to them reaping the political rewards that will come from legalization from a Democratic party that has every opportunity to own this issue.

Take South Carolina Republican Representative Nancy Mace, for example. She recently introduceda republican-authoredbillto legalize cannabis at a federal level. Rep. Mace is up for reelection this year. It appears as though in most states, regardless of your political party, supporting cannabis legalization, at least in some form, is looking like a more promising route to victory than campaigning to continue its prohibition.

What this means for the future of marijuana legalization remains unclear, but the growing public support of marijuana is certainly starting to shape the way politicians approach the issue on the campaign trail.

View post:

How Cannabis Is Shaping the Midterm Elections and the Campaign Trail - Green Entrepreneur

Some of Bakers views are well outside the mainstream. He believes, for example, that central banks are complicit in state-managed economic growth that amounts to monetary socialism and should be disbanded. As he describes how the global monetary system is basically a big confidence trick.

He thinks the cost of living crisis is likely to lead to a crunch debate about fiscal and monetary policy. High inflation plus rising interest rates is really going to add up to misery for millions of people. And the answer to it is, of course, free markets, strong property rights, sound money and low taxes. And the Conservative partys gonna have to rediscover its capacity to deliver those things, he says.

I believe were heading for a bond market storm as a result of inflation rising and the Bank of England raising interest rates. Boris Johnson will face a choice between dramatically slashing spending or changing the Banks mandate.

In 2020, the former chancellor Sajid Javid and the former treasury minister Lord ONeill, in what Baker describes as an obviously co-ordinated way, called for the Bank of Englands inflation target to be scrapped in favour of nominal gross domestic product targeting. Baker is worried this idea will be adopted in order to keep the quantitative easing taps on.

You can keep debasing the currency with money printing up to the point at which people start worrying youre never going to stop, which is when the currency collapses. If the Prime Minister and the Treasury are daft enough to change over to a monetary system that allows money creation into an environment of higher inflation, we could destroy the currency. Thats what is on the table.

At his Parliamentary assessment board Baker had to write an essay on why he was a Conservative. Hed just read Friedrich Hayeks essay Why I am Not a Conservative. I basically just regurgitated it onto the page. And they said to me: Thats one of the best essays weve ever read!

Indeed, he voted Liberal Democrat in his first general election and only became a Eurosceptic after the 2007 Lisbon Treaty, which he describes as a mortal sin. As a Christian, he has no issues with shared sovereignty and as a classical liberal, hes all in favour of free movement of goods and people. For him, Brexit is first and foremost a question of democratic accountability.

I always understood that there would be downsides and difficulties to leaving the EU. Much as I hate customs paperwork, much as I hate having to have rows about SPS [sanitary and phytosanitary] measures [on food imports] in Northern Ireland and all the rest of it, those rows are worth having in order to maintain the principle that the public get the government they vote for.

It is that principle that drove him to become one of the of the so-called Spartans the 28 Tory MPs who voted against Mays Brexit deal on three occasions. But his refusal to compromise doesnt mean he isnt reflective. I am filled with regret and lament that our country has ended up so bruised and divided. I didnt like either [referendum] campaign very much. I particularly didnt like the [Leave] bus [emblazoned with the promise to spend the 350m sent to Brussels each week on the NHS] and I said so during the campaign, which was controversial. People seem to have forgotten that.

Original post:

Steve Baker MP: 'I'm sick of the Cabinet sitting there fat, dumb and happy' - The Telegraph

Republican governors and legislators have embarked on new campaigns to restrict the rights of their constituents and punish those who voice dissent, flexing the power of government run by a party that once pledged to keep government out of private life.

On issues ranging from transgender rights to cross-border trade and private business decisions related to the coronavirus pandemic, Republican lawmakers have advanced measures this year that insert government into many facets of American life.

Twenty-six years after a Democratic president declared an end to the era of big government, that era is back but now its being driven by the Republican Party.

As the right moves into post-liberalism and away from what traditionally has been defined as conservative, it is much more comfortable with wielding state power to own the libs, said Geoffrey Kabaservice, vice president of political studies at the Niskanen Center and author of Rule and Ruin: The Downfall of Moderation and the Destruction of the Republican Party. They would say the state is the only major institution in American life that conservatives now control they have to make full use of whatever power is available to them.

Legislatures in Alabama approved measures barring doctors from providing medical care to transgender youth, over the objections of every major medical association in the country. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) issued an order classifying the provision of gender-affirming care including the use of puberty-delaying hormones as child abuse.

Supporters of those measures focus on and, in one recent case in Michigan, even fundraise off of gender-affirming surgeries, glossing over provisions that would restrict a doctor from prescribing common medicines for treatment.

Lawmakers in two states have sought to ban people from seeking treatment in other states: An Idaho bill that died in the state Senate would have made a felon of anyone who helped a transgender child travel out of the state to seek treatment. A Missouri lawmaker has proposed a similar penalty for those who help women obtain an abortion in another state.

Republican opponents of abortion access have long carved out exceptions for pregnancies caused by rape or incest, or that endanger the life or health of the mother. Measures dropping exceptions for rape or incest have passed in Oklahoma and New Hampshire this year; the Utah Republican Party has proposed eliminating exceptions for the health of the mother in its official platform. The Oklahoma measure makes it a felony to perform an abortion.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) last month signed legislation that will bar teachers from discussing sexual orientation or gender identity in front of young children, a bill opponents call the Dont Say Gay law. Officials in other states, led by Texas Gov. Abbott (R) and Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick (R), say they will make a similar measure a priority when legislators reconvene next year.

When the Disney Corporation voiced its opposition to the Florida law, the Republican-controlled legislature voted to punish the company by eliminating its special tax district which may have the unintended consequence of providing Disney a massive tax break at a cost borne by Florida taxpayers.

Abbott, playing on fears of a tidal wave of migrants poised to cross the southern border, offered his own big-government plan to add new checks on cargo coming into his state. Eight days of inspections cost Texas consumers and businesses an estimated $4.3 billion in lost revenue and turned up no drugs and no undocumented immigrants.

Historians say it is not uncommon for parties to alter their views on government intervention when it suits their purposes. Eric Foner, a political scientist at Columbia University and author of Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men, a history of the ideology of the Republican Party before the Civil War, said the era marked a similar shift among Southern Democrats.

Before the Civil War Democrats advocated limited government.Yet when it came to protecting and expanding slavery they insisted on vigorous federal action for example the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850, the strongest federal intervention in the states of the entire era, Foner wrote in an email.

Other Republicans showed no qualms about the exercise of federal power. Kabaservice, of the Niskanen Center, pointed to Theodore Roosevelt, who used the Sherman Antitrust Act to break up Standard Oil and J.P. Morgans Northern Securities Company.

More recently, Republican presidents who dared stray from small-government orthodoxy were attacked as apostates. George H.W. Bush suffered the slings and arrows from the libertarian right when he signed the Americans with Disabilities Act into law in 1990. His son, George W. Bush, called himself a compassionate conservative and took heat from Republicans who opposed a Medicare expansion measure that bitterly divided his own party.

Todays Republican Party is more influenced by former President Trump, whose ideological inconsistencies have never troubled his most ardent fans and imitators. Trump never offered a paean to limited government, if power could be used to punish blue states and political opponents.

Kabaservice said he saw parallels between the recent Republican exercises in power and the McCarthy era, when conservatives like William F. Buckley and Brent Bozell approved of McCarthyism because they saw it as a template for a much more thoroughgoing government repression of dissent, Kabaservice said in an email.

They wanted to use the state as an instrument of coercion to enforce social conformity, to regulate and control human behavior, and to drill into Americans the principles of duty, order, obedience and authority, he wrote.

Rick Wilson, the onetime Republican strategist-turned-Trump critic, said Trump revived the clash between small-government conservatism and the inclination of those who hold power to exercise it.

Trumps natural leanings toward authoritarianism merged with the post-libertarian moment of conservatism. As nationalism and populism replaced it, the argument against using the power of the state for ideological ends became weaker and weaker, Wilson said. I fear that once the demon is out of the pentagram, its hard to put it back.

On The Trail is a reported column by Reid Wilson, primarily focused on the 2022 elections.

Visit link:

On The Trail: The era of big government Republicanism - The Hill

Country

United States of AmericaUS Virgin IslandsUnited States Minor Outlying IslandsCanadaMexico, United Mexican StatesBahamas, Commonwealth of theCuba, Republic ofDominican RepublicHaiti, Republic ofJamaicaAfghanistanAlbania, People's Socialist Republic ofAlgeria, People's Democratic Republic ofAmerican SamoaAndorra, Principality ofAngola, Republic ofAnguillaAntarctica (the territory South of 60 deg S)Antigua and BarbudaArgentina, Argentine RepublicArmeniaArubaAustralia, Commonwealth ofAustria, Republic ofAzerbaijan, Republic ofBahrain, Kingdom ofBangladesh, People's Republic ofBarbadosBelarusBelgium, Kingdom ofBelizeBenin, People's Republic ofBermudaBhutan, Kingdom ofBolivia, Republic ofBosnia and HerzegovinaBotswana, Republic ofBouvet Island (Bouvetoya)Brazil, Federative Republic ofBritish Indian Ocean Territory (Chagos Archipelago)British Virgin IslandsBrunei DarussalamBulgaria, People's Republic ofBurkina FasoBurundi, Republic ofCambodia, Kingdom ofCameroon, United Republic ofCape Verde, Republic ofCayman IslandsCentral African RepublicChad, Republic ofChile, Republic ofChina, People's Republic ofChristmas IslandCocos (Keeling) IslandsColombia, Republic ofComoros, Union of theCongo, Democratic Republic ofCongo, People's Republic ofCook IslandsCosta Rica, Republic ofCote D'Ivoire, Ivory Coast, Republic of theCyprus, Republic ofCzech RepublicDenmark, Kingdom ofDjibouti, Republic ofDominica, Commonwealth ofEcuador, Republic ofEgypt, Arab Republic ofEl Salvador, Republic ofEquatorial Guinea, Republic ofEritreaEstoniaEthiopiaFaeroe IslandsFalkland Islands (Malvinas)Fiji, Republic of the Fiji IslandsFinland, Republic ofFrance, French RepublicFrench GuianaFrench PolynesiaFrench Southern TerritoriesGabon, Gabonese RepublicGambia, Republic of theGeorgiaGermanyGhana, Republic ofGibraltarGreece, Hellenic RepublicGreenlandGrenadaGuadaloupeGuamGuatemala, Republic ofGuinea, RevolutionaryPeople's Rep'c ofGuinea-Bissau, Republic ofGuyana, Republic ofHeard and McDonald IslandsHoly See (Vatican City State)Honduras, Republic ofHong Kong, Special Administrative Region of ChinaHrvatska (Croatia)Hungary, Hungarian People's RepublicIceland, Republic ofIndia, Republic ofIndonesia, Republic ofIran, Islamic Republic ofIraq, Republic ofIrelandIsrael, State ofItaly, Italian RepublicJapanJordan, Hashemite Kingdom ofKazakhstan, Republic ofKenya, Republic ofKiribati, Republic ofKorea, Democratic People's Republic ofKorea, Republic ofKuwait, State ofKyrgyz RepublicLao People's Democratic RepublicLatviaLebanon, Lebanese RepublicLesotho, Kingdom ofLiberia, Republic ofLibyan Arab JamahiriyaLiechtenstein, Principality ofLithuaniaLuxembourg, Grand Duchy ofMacao, Special Administrative Region of ChinaMacedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic ofMadagascar, Republic ofMalawi, Republic ofMalaysiaMaldives, Republic ofMali, Republic ofMalta, Republic ofMarshall IslandsMartiniqueMauritania, Islamic Republic ofMauritiusMayotteMicronesia, Federated States ofMoldova, Republic ofMonaco, Principality ofMongolia, Mongolian People's RepublicMontserratMorocco, Kingdom ofMozambique, People's Republic ofMyanmarNamibiaNauru, Republic ofNepal, Kingdom ofNetherlands AntillesNetherlands, Kingdom of theNew CaledoniaNew ZealandNicaragua, Republic ofNiger, Republic of theNigeria, Federal Republic ofNiue, Republic ofNorfolk IslandNorthern Mariana IslandsNorway, Kingdom ofOman, Sultanate ofPakistan, Islamic Republic ofPalauPalestinian Territory, OccupiedPanama, Republic ofPapua New GuineaParaguay, Republic ofPeru, Republic ofPhilippines, Republic of thePitcairn IslandPoland, Polish People's RepublicPortugal, Portuguese RepublicPuerto RicoQatar, State ofReunionRomania, Socialist Republic ofRussian FederationRwanda, Rwandese RepublicSamoa, Independent State ofSan Marino, Republic ofSao Tome and Principe, Democratic Republic ofSaudi Arabia, Kingdom ofSenegal, Republic ofSerbia and MontenegroSeychelles, Republic ofSierra Leone, Republic ofSingapore, Republic ofSlovakia (Slovak Republic)SloveniaSolomon IslandsSomalia, Somali RepublicSouth Africa, Republic ofSouth Georgia and the South Sandwich IslandsSpain, Spanish StateSri Lanka, Democratic Socialist Republic ofSt. HelenaSt. Kitts and NevisSt. LuciaSt. Pierre and MiquelonSt. Vincent and the GrenadinesSudan, Democratic Republic of theSuriname, Republic ofSvalbard & Jan Mayen IslandsSwaziland, Kingdom ofSweden, Kingdom ofSwitzerland, Swiss ConfederationSyrian Arab RepublicTaiwan, Province of ChinaTajikistanTanzania, United Republic ofThailand, Kingdom ofTimor-Leste, Democratic Republic ofTogo, Togolese RepublicTokelau (Tokelau Islands)Tonga, Kingdom ofTrinidad and Tobago, Republic ofTunisia, Republic ofTurkey, Republic ofTurkmenistanTurks and Caicos IslandsTuvaluUganda, Republic ofUkraineUnited Arab EmiratesUnited Kingdom of Great Britain & N. IrelandUruguay, Eastern Republic ofUzbekistanVanuatuVenezuela, Bolivarian Republic ofViet Nam, Socialist Republic ofWallis and Futuna IslandsWestern SaharaYemenZambia, Republic ofZimbabwe

Read more here:

Solutions in the spotlight at 14th Congressional District debate - Northwest Georgia News

The enthusiasm for the McConaughey candidacy captured by the pollsters is less an endorsement of his mashed-up politics than it is an exercise in name recognition and evidence of the power of charisma. The Texas governor election wont be held for another 18 months; asking voters who they would vote for that far out from Election Day is like asking somebody what theyre going to have for dinner two weeks from Thursday. They might give an answer, but they wont feel bound by it.

This is not to suggest that McConaughey wouldnt make a viable candidate. But if he does, hell start having to do the kind of things that alienate peoplelike deciding whether he was a Democrat or a Republican. Hes been a little mum on the topic, although he did declare in 2017 a need for us to unite around President Donald Trump. Name recognition can carry a novice candidate a long way in a competitive contest, even if their positions and affiliations are a little fuzzy. Other famous performers, including Jesse Ventura, Al Franken, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Sonny Bono and this guy named Trump you might have heard about, silenced the doubters by winning office in their first tries in part because they were known quantities, so theres hope for the McConaughey candidacy (or even Caitlyn Jenners rumored campaign for California governor) if its genuine.

But is it? Howard Stern hoaxed his way into and out of the New York governor race in 1994, and Charles Barkley is forever doing the same in Alabama. In 2017-18, Kid Rock got in trouble with the Federal Elections Commission for a U.S. Senate run that bore some of the real markers of a genuine campaigna campaign slogan, a Kid Rock for Senate website, campaign merch, and his political speeches at his concerts. (The Kid escaped FEC wrath by asserting his campaign was just a publicity stunt for his new album.) McConaughey, as mentioned, has a memoir out, so any publicity is good publicity for him right now.

We shouldnt be entirely dismissive of entertainers running for president. Actor Cynthia Nixon ran a decent, and serious, campaign for New York governor in 2018. Song-and-dance man George Murphy didnt embarrass himself in the U.S. Senate after winning a seat from California. Performers such as Bono, Bob Dornan, Fred Grandy, Ben Jones, Schwarzenegger, Helen Gahagan Douglas and John Davis Lodge, a Hollywood star of the 1930s and 1940s, pulled their weight after winning elections.

Given their combined track record, perhaps every major election should have a celebrity candidate on the ballot to provide voters with periodic relief from the professional politicians who monopolize public office. Besides, the Texas chief executive has traditionally been weak compared to other states, so McConaugheys ego trip to the governors mansion cant do that much damage. Instead, it should remind us of how forgiving and accepting the political process can be. America is a blessed place where even those with little political talent, less political knowledge and no political horse sense can win elections as long as they have a memorable name. May the best-known candidate win!

In Texas, the best-known candidate has got to be Matthew McConaughey. So is he really running? Thats anybodys guessbut so far it looks more like a middle-aged morning jog than a real run.

******

I deliberately avoided Ronald Reagan in this piece because he was a committed politician and campaigner long before he ran for California governor in 1966. That said, name recognition played a big role in his political victories. Send your campaign-finance filings to [emailprotected]. My email alerts use facial recognition to vote. My Twitter feed thinks Clinton is still president. My RSS feed still backs George Papoon for president.

Go here to read the rest:

Opinion | The Empty Vessel of Matthew McConaughey - POLITICO

Breadcrumb Trail Links

Having spent some time in libertarian circles, I'm dismayed by politicians associated with that movement openly flouting public health guidelines and rules enacted to deal with COVID-19 in the name of a narrow, selfish definition of freedom.

Author of the article:

Having spent some time in libertarian circles, Im dismayed by politicians associated with that movement openly flouting public health guidelines and rules enacted to deal with COVID-19 in the name of a narrow, selfish definition of freedom.

The whole basis of libertarianism, as I understand it, is we dont need governments to tell us what to do, that free, informed and decent citizens know how to do the right thing. I think its fair to say the last few weeks have shown this belief system to be a dangerous illusion when improperly applied.

I still believe that with our good hearts and proper information, we are more than capable of helping create a better, freer, fairer and more prosperous world. That good people will do whats necessary to protect their fellows and themselves, even if that entails sacrifices. Back in September, I wrote: We are, fundamentally, . . . a free people. We are also . . . empathetic creatures. Freedom alone, exercised without restraints, leads to anarchy and selfishness. Empathy by itself is powerless to do anything. Our superpower is activated when we combine those two features.

Except for the, er, exceptions. Ontario Premier Doug Ford is fond of calling those who defy public health restrictions yahoos. But even he wouldnt use that term to describe elected officials. People such as Ontario MPP Randy Hillier, federal party leader Maxime Bernier and what appears to be one-quarter of Alberta Premier Jason Kennedys caucus are among those who seem proud to show themselves as dangerous, irresponsible refuseniks. And Im trying to be polite.

Its easy to dismiss folks who fund Ezra Levants Rebel out of frustration with politics, and the ill-informed Twitter troll army. But when so many in positions of power and authority encourage others to show up unmasked at a Kemptville bar or an Edmonton-area church claiming the police state (sic) is attacking Christians by enforcing public-health regulations, we have a problem. When these people need ventilators at an overcrowded ICU, whose fault will it be? Is it OK for them to use hospital resources while kids with complex medical needs, whove been following public health guidelines, endure more delays in necessary treatments because hospitals are overwhelmed with COVID patients, especially if they caught COVID bey ignoring safety rules?

Whose freedom is really at risk, here? Whose rights are infringed?

I dont want lectures about freedom from people unwilling to make relatively small personal sacrifices for the common good. Not to minimize the real hardships many Canadians endure because of COVID; they are real, and they hurt. So do smaller sacrifices we all make. But if you wont tolerate a face mask or virtual religious services when everyone else is on Zoom for everything, dont tell me how your rights are being violated by a tyrannical public health autocracy.

Freedom and responsibility go hand in hand. Im not here to tell you what to do or believe, but if, like me, you are disgusted with elected officials encouraging greed, selfishness and deliberate endangerment of others in the name of freedom, vow never to vote them, and their dangerous ideology, back in.

Brigitte Pellerin is an Ottawa writer

Excerpt from:

Pellerin: Don't flout COVID rules in the name of 'freedom' - London Free Press (Blogs)

Mary Ann Steiner drove 2 hours from her home in the St. Louis suburb of University City to the tiny Ozark town of Centerville, Mo., to get vaccinated against COVID-19. After pulling into the drive-thru line in a church parking lot, she noticed that the others waiting for shots had something in common with her.

Everyone in the very short line was a woman, said Steiner, 70.

Her observation reflects a national reality: More women than men are getting COVID vaccines, even as more men are dying of the disease. KHN examined vaccination dashboards for all 50 states and the District of Columbia in early April and found that each of the 38 that listed gender breakdowns showed more women had received shots than men.

Public health experts cited many reasons for the difference, including that women make up three-quarters of the workforce in health care and education, sectors prioritized for initial vaccines.

Womens longer life spans also mean that older people in the first rounds of vaccine eligibility were more likely to be female. But as eligibility expands to all adults, the gap has continued. Experts point to womens roles as caregivers and their greater likelihood to seek out preventive health care in general as contributing factors.

In Steiners case, her daughter spent hours on the phone and computer, scoping out and setting up vaccine appointments for five relatives. In my family, the women are about a million times more proactive about getting a COVID vaccine, Steiner said. The females in families are often the ones who are more proactive about the health of the family.

As of early April, statistics showed the vaccine breakdown between women and men was generally close to 60% and 40% women made up 58% of those vaccinated in Alabama and 57% in Florida, for example.

States dont measure vaccinations by gender uniformly, though. Some break down the statistics by total vaccine doses, for example, while others report people who have gotten at least one dose.

A handful of states report gender vaccination statistics over time. That data shows the gap has narrowed but hasnt disappeared as vaccine eligibility has expanded beyond people in long-term care and health care workers.

In Kentucky, for instance, 64% of residents who had received at least one dose of vaccine by early February were women and 36% were men. As of early April, the stats had shifted to 57% women and 43% men.

In New Hampshire, one of the states furthest along in rolling out the vaccines the gap on April 13 was 18 percentage points for two doses (58.4% women and 40.4% men) and 13 percentage points for one dose, (55.8% percent women and 42.9% men).

A few states break the numbers down by age as well as gender, revealing that the male-female difference persists across age groups.

Dr. Elvin Geng, a professor at the medical school at Washington University in St. Louis, said women of all age groups, races and ethnicities generally use health services more than men which is one reason they live longer.

Arrianna Planey, an assistant professor who specializes in medical geography at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, said its often women who manage medical appointments for their households so they may be more familiar with navigating health systems.

Decades of research have documented how and why men are less likely to seek care. A 2019 study in the American Journal of Mens Health, for example, examined health care use in religious heterosexual men and concluded masculine norms such as a perception that they are supposed to be tough were the main reason many men avoided seeking care.

Attitudes about the COVID pandemic and the vaccines also affect who gets the shots.

Dr. Rebecca Wurtz, director of public health administration and policy at the University of Minnesota, said women have been more likely to lose jobs during the pandemic, and in many cases bear the brunt of teaching and caring for children at home.

Women are ready for this to be done even more than men are, Wurtz said.

Political attitudes, too, play a part in peoples views on coping with the pandemic, experts said. A Gallup poll last year found that among both Democrats and Republicans, women were more likely to say they took precautions to avoid COVID, such as always practicing physical distancing and wearing masks indoors when they couldnt stay 6 feet apart from others.

In a recent national poll by KFF, 29% of Republicans and 5% of Democrats said they definitely would not get the shot.

Paul Niehaus IV of St. Louis, who described himself as an independent libertarian with conservative leanings, said he wont get a COVID vaccine. He said the federal government, along with Big Tech and Big Pharma, are pushing an experimental medicine that is not fully approved by the Food and Drug Administration, and he doesnt trust those institutions.

This is a freedom issue. This is a civil liberties issue, said Niehaus, a 34-year-old self-employed musician. My motto is Let people choose.

Steiner said she was eager to be vaccinated. She has an immune disorder that puts her at high risk for severe illness from COVID and hasnt seen some of her grandchildren in a year and a half.

She has now received both doses of the Moderna vaccine and said she doesnt regret taking the more difficult step of traveling five hours round trip to get her first shot in February. (She was able to find a closer location for her second dose.)

Its for my safety, for my kids safety, for my neighbors safety, for the people who go to my churchs safety, she said. I really dont understand the resistance.

Follow this link:

More women then men are getting COVID-19 shots - The Union Leader

The Democratic party has taken a radical turn on immigration. Gone are the not-so-distant days of Barbara Jordan, when concern for the rule of law and social and economic cohesion were taken seriously. Today, the party is led by firebrands like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who call for abolishing an entire enforcement agency. Democrats have staffed all four immigration-related panels in the House of Representatives with members who are hostile to national borders. The Democratic-controlled chamber has already passed two major amnesty bills. Not to be outdone, President Biden has signed several executive actions that stop construction of the border wall, eviscerate interior enforcement, and remove restrictions on travelers from regions rife with terrorism, among other things.

None of these policies had the support of Democratic leadership in the 1990s. At that time, President Clinton was enforcing the law, environmentalists were concerned about population growth, and labor unions were prioritizing American workers. Those positions, which had bipartisan support, are condemned as close-minded and bigoted by Democratic leadership today. What brought about this fundamental change, a change so extreme it threatens the very sovereignty of the United States? Like their libertarian counterparts on the right, one should never discount the powerful financial incentive that Democratic elites have for opposing borders. But powerful financial incentives existed long before the current push to effectively abolish immigration law. The mainstreaming of these radical positions is, at least in part, the result of a long Gramscian march through the institutions that began in the early 20th century.

In his book The Genesis of Political Correctness: The Basis of a False Morality, Michael William traces the development of critical theory by a group of German social scientists who grew disillusioned with the failure of traditional Marxism. Realizing no proletarian revolt was forthcoming, they converted the ideologys attacks on class into broader cultural antagonisms. The group, known as the Frankfurt School, saw the fundamental structure of Western society as irredeemably oppressive and sought its eventual overthrow through internal conflict. This conflict would be fomented primarily through the manipulation of language that would recast all relationships as power struggles between the oppressors and the oppressed. By changing the way that familial and social relationships were defined, Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno, Herbert Marcuse, and their colleagues sought to change the way that people understood these relationships. Over time, they hoped that discontent and division would break down the existing order of society.

In his essay Repressive Tolerance, Marcuse, echoing Rousseau, argues that public opinion is invalid because a false consciousness has become the general consciousness, enslaving people who do not know they are enslaved. This tyranny of the majority, which masquerades as tolerance, can only be overcome by militant intolerance. Marcuse advocates banning the speech and assembly of certain groups and he calls for the withdrawal of civil rights from a majority who is oppressing the minority. He supports rigid restrictions on teachings and practices in the educational institutions and argues that support for calm and reasoned debate facilitates oppression. What is needed is the development of an enraged and subversive faction that is willing to engage in violence against the established order.

Marcuse believed that the catalyst for this uprising would be alienated minority groups. Such groups would take the place of the broader working class who, to Marcuses chagrin, seemed content in their supposed oppression. So he looked to the American black population as a possible source of agitation and supported militant activism. It is important to note that Marcuse did not want these activists to succeed in remedying injustice, but wanted minorities to remain marginalized from the larger society. As William explains, For Marcuse, the integration into society of supposedly alienated groups acts as a stabilizing force and thereby neutralizes the revolutionary elements which, according to Marxism, should be committed to societys overthrow.

The key for Marcuse, a founder of critical theory, was to sow division. It was not to redress wrongs or grievances within the existing social framework, but to perpetuate and inflame those wrongs and grievances until the social framework could be overthrown. Integrating peoples into a functioning society was not helpful to his goal of revolution. But one major development, which Marcuse may not have even anticipated, was helpful: the modern era of mass immigration. As Marcuse was winding down, that era was winding up. The Hart-Celler Act of 1965 exponentially increased the number of immigrants admitted to the United States. In just a couple of decades, there were enough newcomers to begin to overwhelm the assimilation process. And by that time, there were enough critical theorists in academia to challenge the very notion of assimilation.

One such theorist is Jurgen Habermas, a prominent German sociologist whose voluminous body of work is heavily influenced by the Frankfurt School. As William points out, Habermas believes that the classic form of the nation state is disintegrating and envisions a constitutional patriotism that is stripped of language and culture and devoted to a political authority that extends civil rights beyond borders. He claims that citizenship was never conceptually tied to national identity and that republican freedom can cut its umbilical links to the womb of the national consciousness which had originally given birth to it. Habermasnow sees the possibility of a global public sphere that was once imagined by Kant and Rousseau: The arrival of world citizenship is no longer merely a phantom, though we are still far from achieving it. State citizenship and world citizenship form a continuum that already shows itself, at least in outline form.

For the classic form of nations to disintegrate, national identity must first be dissolved. Habermas, like many of his fellow academics, sees mass immigration as a catalyst for this process. He praises the effect of multiculturalism on the United States and, in the European context, writes approvingly that Immigration from Eastern Europe and poverty-stricken regions of the Third World will intensify multicultural diversity in these societies. This will give rise to social tensions. He believes that these social tensions, which were sought by Marcuse, will hasten the move to a supranational governing structure that is devoid of shared history or tradition.

Like Marcuse, Habermas dismisses the suffering that will result from these social tensions. He denigrates concerns over the upheaval caused by mass immigration, referring to such concerns as the chauvinism of prosperity: The European states should agree upon a liberal immigration policy. They should not draw their wagons around themselves and their chauvinism of prosperity, hoping to ignore the pressures of those hoping to immigrate or seek asylum. The democratic right of self-determination includes, of course, the right to preserve ones own political culture, which includes the concrete context of citizens rights, though it does not include the self-assertion of a privileged cultural life form.

Habermas asserts that Ones own national tradition will, in each case, have to be appropriated in such a manner that it is related to and relavtiveized [sic] by the vantage points of other cultures. He sees mass immigration and the relativizing of cultures as a way of democratizing citizenship. This process is being pushed with a particular goal in mind. As he explains, Only democratic citizenship can prepare the way for a condition of world citizenship which does not close itself off within particularistic biases, and which accepts a worldwide form of political communication.

This view is now pervasive among public figures. William cites several others, like Bhikhu Parekh, a British political theorist turned politician who served on race and multicultural commissions before being appointed to a life peerage in the House of Lords. Parekh uses his influential position to call for unlimited immigration to transform the United Kingdom into a community of communities and a multicultural post-nation that sheds its cultural identity. These sentiments are nearly universal in American universities and are routinely pushed by post-American politicians and activists. While campaigning for president, Joe Biden tersely summarized this view with his assertion that people who entered the United States illegally are more American than most Americans are. In other words, America is merely a vague unrooted universal sentiment.

Underlying this position is the skepticism and intolerance of critical theory, with its contempt for the rule of law and efforts to integrate newcomers into a majority culture that is seen as oppressive. As William notes, this contempt extends to patriotic citizens, who are now being taught to embrace a hatred for their countries and their histories. Like previous revolutions, this great upheaval is being undertaken with the foolish hope of creating a secular utopia. Whether they realize it or not, Democratic leaders are now perpetuating this upheaval with their efforts to effectively abolish immigration law.

See the rest here:

Critical Theory and Mass Immigration - Immigration Blog

In the 2020 presidential election, the Libertarian Party candidate, Jo Jorgensen, gained 1.2 percent of the vote, less than half the partys 2016 election result.Jeffrey MichelsandOlivier Lewiswrite that despite signs that pointed towards the potential for libertarian voters to beking makersin the 2020 election, their dislike of DonaldTrump turned many to Joe Biden and the Democratic Party.

In the 2016 US Presidential election,the former RepublicanGovernor of New Mexico,Gary Johnsongained3.3 percentof the national vote share,the highest on record foraLibertarian Partypresidential candidate.This modest milestonecould have been written off as the result of a race featuring two highly unpopular mainstream candidates, Donald Trump andformer Secretary of State,Hillary Clinton. But itmightalso haveportendeda more meaningful movement inUSelectoral politics,onein which a growing Libertarian Party or at least an increasingly independent bloc of libertarian voters gainsthecriticalmass totip the race.Infiercely competitive bipartisancontests, protests voterscould position themselvesaspower brokers.

When we entertained this possibilityduring the primary season,plenty ofsigns were pointing toanother strongresult for the LibertarianParty.The frontrunners of the Democratic Party primaries were relativelyradicalcandidateslike Senators Elizabeth Warren and BernieSanders,who were proposinga new pushofstateintervention in the economyanathemaof courseto libertarian ideology.Meanwhile,Trumps dominanceofthe Republic Party was unquestioned, blocking any attempt to move the party away from the incumbents brand ofblunt nativism.And the one RepublicanHouse Representative, JustinAmash,whodiddare questionthisdominanceand in doing so became a minorcult hero threw in his hatfor the Libertarian Party ticket.

But then, alotchanged. Democratsrallied behindmoderateformer Vice-President Joe Biden, while LibertarianschoseJo Jorgensen, a familiar face within the partybuta strangerbeyond it.TheCOVID-19 pandemicthenrenderedimpossible thein-personcanvassingnecessaryto raise Jorgensens profile. And itleftlittle place for libertarian discourse in public debate. In the run up to the election, thequestionwasnot whethergovernment interventionwasjustifiable, butratherhow much and what kind was needed.

As a result,inLibertarian candidatesfinished withjust under 1.2 percentof the vote in the 2020 election, losingnearlytwo-thirdsof theirsharecompared to 2016.

Did the2020setbackconfirm that theLibertarian spike of2016wasnot asignbut a fluke?Looking at the bigger picture,was it rash to consider thatlibertarianvoterscould becomekingmakersin US Presidentialelections?

One straightforwardresponsewas put forthimmediately after the electionbycommentatorsandpoliticianswho argued that the Libertarian Party nonetheless decided the election, spoiling a Republican victory. Despite underperforming relative to the previous election, Jo Jorgensons ticket still was the second-best result in Libertarian Party history, and it was enough to cover the difference between Trump and Biden in several swing states.

Thisspoiler argument rests on the false assumption that voters of the Libertarian Party, and moregenerallyvoterswhoseidentificationwithlibertarian valuesrivals their loyalty toany particular party, belong, in the end,totheGOP. It was precisely the extent to which this assumption was false thatprovides a key to answering the questions set out above.TheRepublican Party showed in 2016 that its turn to Trump could cost it a large portion of voters to a Libertarian Party protest ticket. Doubling down on Trump in 2020, the GOP proved it could pushthelions share of these same voters into the enemy camp,assuringits defeat.

Indeed, the story of 2020 is not the number of those who turned to the Libertarian ticket, but those who turned away from it, in favour of the Democrats.Among theeightmillion peoplewho voted for a third-party candidate in 2016 (half of which voted for the Libertarian Party), an overwhelming majority sided with Biden in 2020.The main indicator is thatwhile Trumps 2020 results are similar to those of 2016,Bidens are much better than Clintons in 2016.Some of these not-Clinton-but-yes-Biden votersmight be new votersor former Republicans, butexit poll surveyscorroborate the hypothesis that a significant number of 2016 Libertarian voters opted for Biden in 2020.

They did this despitethe fact thatJoe Bidenscareerrecord andelectoralcampaignstillpresenteda number of red flags for libertarians.Mostnotably, heproposedwhat could be become the mostambitious planof government spending in decades.But these concerns were evidently outweighed by the prospect of another four years of a Trump presidency. If there is any libertarian case for Biden, as onelibertarian commentatorput it, its situational, and that situation ends on January 20.

The 2020 elections showed then that theblocfrom 2016is still there and is still important, but that itspotential to determine electionscomes fromswingingfrom one party toanotherinstead of settling onand leveragingits own.

Unfortunately for libertarian-minded voters, thisleavesthem with onlyrelatively pooroptionsin future elections. There is apossibilitythat many of them will turn back to the Republican Party once it puts forth a less offensive candidate. ButtheGOPwill likely remain in thrall of thebloc that Trump forged,a bitter reality for libertarians whojust a decade ago seemed totake the reinswiththesuccess of theTea Party movement.The Democratic Party will surely keep some of the votes it won from this bloc as well.But the pressure to placate its far-left wing will likely outweigh its desire to permanently win over the moderate libertarians. And for the Libertarian Party to beanything more than a last resort,it wouldhave to prove itself capable of exactly that which it failed to do this election: rally this bloc under a common banner with a shared strategy, in so doing convincing mainstream parties that it cannot be ignored.

In the next Presidential election, theblocs voteswill likely be dividedbetween thesethree options,weakening theefficacyof eachand likelystokinga fourth option:abstention.

There is aparadox that limits the blocs potential.The same characteristics that predispose libertarians to be swing voters their pride in rational, independent behaviour,and their resistance to organised politics,if not outrightanarchism also makes them unlikely tocoordinate their actionon a large scale to optimallyleverage this position.Perhaps they could rally together through another groundswell movement like the Tea Party, not a totally fantastic scenario considering that resistance to governmentspending and restriction ofcivil liberties willsurely mount as Covid-19 recedes. Butcould this feed into an independent forcethat would break thetwo-party doom loop,withoutbeing co-opted by the general anti-establishment rage buoying the Republican Party?

Instead,Libertarian Party and independent libertarian voterswill havetosettle forgettingcreative andpickingsmallerstrategically placedbattles. We have alreadyobservedthis inthe elections for Senate, where libertariancandidates in Georgiahelped toforce two run-offs, the results of which will decide the majority. Therun-offsarestillmostly alose-losefor libertarians, butthereissurely athrill in throwinga spanner in the workingsof the major parties, especially if thisincitesthe opposition to offermore libertarian policies.AsLibertariancandidatein Georgia Shane Hazelnoted:I hope people understand that creating a run-off should be the primary mission until the party is much stronger.

Of course, the Libertarian Party can also think global, act local. In Wyoming,Marshall Burtbecame the first Libertarian to win a statehouse seatsince 2002, andthe fifthin US history. Via its Frontier Project, the Libertarian Party hopes to wina fewmore state-level seatsinNorth and South Dakota, Montana, Utah, and Wisconsin.There is also the possibility of winning more specific, less party-political ballots,viareferendums.In 2020,many referendumspassed seemingly libertarianproposals ondrugs, taxes, rent, voting rights,ranked-choice voting,andlabour regulations.Californian referendumsare a prime example of this, butAlaskaandColoradoare also interesting cases.

The questionofwhether the Libertarian Party or a bloc of libertarian voters emerges as a swing factor andkingmakerin future US elections will depend on the success of a project to carve a common identity and settle on a shared strategy.They could do this autonomously with their own party or by fitting into a spaceleft by one of themainstream parties.But neitherscenarioappears likely in the short-term,meaningthe battle for libertarian values will likely be waged where it has been waged best,far from the centreofthebiggestelectoral stage.

Please read our comments policy before commenting.

Note: This article gives the views of the author, and not the position of USAPP American Politics and Policy, nor the London School of Economics.

Shortened URL for this post:https://bit.ly/34EqYVU

Jeffrey MichelsCollege of EuropeJeffrey Michels is a Parliamentary Assistant at the European Parliament and an Academic Assistant at the College of Europe,Natolincampus.

Olivier LewisCollege of EuropeOlivier has been a Research Fellow at the College of Europe, Natolin campus, since August 2019.Olivier is currently writing his first book,Security Cooperation between Western States, to be published with Routledge. He is also working on shorter publications related to counterterrorism, counterinsurgency,and Brexit.

Here is the original post:

What Happened?: The 2020 election showed that libertarians have a long way to go before they can become a national movement. - USAPP American Politics...

opinion

Joe Bruno| Sarasota Herald-Tribune

As we are nearing the end of 2020 the most tumultuous year that I, a Libertarian Republican, has ever experienced in my more than seven decades onEarth what disturbs me the most is that our country, our state and our city are more divided than ever before.

In this community, for example, the extreme divides are among Democrats and Republicans, as well among conservatives and liberals. But what's most disturbing is our division on racial lines: I have lived in Sarasota for more than 25 years, and Ive seen racism rear its ugly head here much more often than I saw during nearly 50 years of living in New York City.

This sense of division didn't just happen, but it has gotten worse under the last two presidents: neither Barack Obama norDonald Trump made much of an effort to unite us. That's why we're now in a situation where even though Joe Biden clearly defeated Trump in last month's presidential election, we're still being inundated with unsubstantiated claims that the presidency has been stolen from Trump.

As a lifetime member of a members-only, nonprofit Sarasota establishment an entitythat also hasa bar that I visit on occasion I still hear people state without equivocation that Trump was robbed. These people are genuinely indignant, but when I ask them for definitive proof rather than circumstantial evidence, they only give me angry glares. I actually think that some people feel that even though I am a Republican, I'm somehow betraying my own party.

What is also disturbing is how divided we are regarding how to combat the coronavirus. Locally the rules and regulations concerning COVID-19 are different based on which jurisdiction you'rein and which political party happens to control that jurisdiction.

Sarasota County is run by the Republicans. They have issued a public advisory for people to wear masks in public if social distancing is not possible. But mask-wearing is not mandated in public outdoor spaces; restaurants in the county can mandate mask-wearing in their establishments, but they are not compelled by the county to do so.

However, the Democrats who run the city of Sarasota have applied more stringent requirements. In July the city passed an ordinance that requires face coverings be worn in indoor and outdoor public locations and businesses within the City of Sarasota" in order to help with the spread of COVID-19.

The ordinance also states, In short, if you are inside or outside a public place in the City of Sarasota, cant physically or socially distance (six feet away from others) and do not fall within one of the exceptions listed in the ordinance, you need to wear a face covering. In addition the city threatened to fine those who violated the ordinance.

But once again partisan politics came into play.

In September Gov. Ron DeSantis, a Republican, issued an executive order that effectively cut the legs out from under the city of Sarasotas mask ordinance and suspended the collection of fines and penalties associated with COVID-19 enforced upon individuals.

So what should we Sarasotans, regardless ofour political affiliation, do to best safeguard ourselves and our families against a virus that remains deadly as we wait for widespread distribution of the vaccines to combat it?

I can't influence what others do in the communitynor is it what I would want to do.

But this is what I do.

When I go to a grocery store or a department store anywhere in Sarasota County, I always wear a mask. Yes, its uncomfortable, but thats what the business requires. So thats what I do. Why be obnoxious and cause unnecessary problemsfor the employees of that establishment?

But when it comes to restaurants, I refuse to go to any dining establishment in Sarasota County that requires me to wear a mask to come inside. I find that rule silly onceyou are seated, you can take off your mask and not be required to put it back on at any time, even when you leave the restaurant. So whats the point of the rulein the first place?

In other words, I actively respect the rights of others to remain safe without sacrificing my right to make my own choices in living my life.

It can done, and it is thiseven-handed, civil approach that I would like to see all of us embrace more often as we face COVID-19 and many other issues during the year ahead.

This is my New Year's wish for all Sarasotans.

Let's embrace the famous line that the late actor Wilford Brimley would always utter in his popular commercials for Quaker Oats years ago: Its the right thing to do.

Joe Bruno is a Sarasota resident and the author of 60 books, both fiction and nonfiction. He is also a Media Member of the Florida Boxing Hall of Fame.

Go here to see the original:

My New Year's wish for Sarasotans - Sarasota Herald-Tribune

Back on Aug. 8, 1976, Thomas Sowell wrote an article for The New York Times titled, A Black Conservative. His words speak of a liberal media. That rings true today. Why so one-sided?

Why are Blacks like Larry Elders, Thomas Sowell and Clarence Thomas not being propped up by social media? The lefty media that brings you BLM, inclusiveness and equality is the same media that doesnt give a voice to Blacks on the right. Is it because theyre Black, not left, or both? If this doesnt cause you to pause well, then, why not?

I realize that not everyone on the left believes what the extremist lefties are saying.

How is Biden going to unite the country? For the most part, the right and middle arent going to support the leftist agenda. Its the people in government who dont follow the Constitution, have agendas, create division and pick winners and losers.

So, moving to an all white neighborhood makes one a racist? Am I a racist? Ya know. This is tantamount to tossing s*** on a wall to see if it sticks. Is this the education public schools are offering?

You dont want equality. You want successful people to pay for what you want. One reader said it was envy. Its also legalized theft by the government. The left wants their way, period.

I see affirmative action as treating Blacks like a commodity. Isnt it offensive to say, your qualifications werent the best, its your skin color we need in our group.

Some of you keep insisting that Social Security is a socialist program. Some links say that, others dont. Why would you want to rely on government to fund some or all of your retirement? Some view Social Security as another form of legalized theft. No doubt, it has helped millions of people. However, what government does with that money is suspicious. We should learn to be personally responsible. Government should be accountable.

John Bos doesnt understand what capitalism truly is. Unfortunately, many on the right believe tax breaks and the government playing favorites is part capitalism as well. Thomas Sowell doesnt believe that, nor does Rep. Justin Amash in Michigan. Also, if you want to trash capitalism, as corrupted as it is, your smart phones, solar panels, electric cars, etc, etc, are all a product of capitalism.

Jim Palermo, libertarian capitalism doesnt put corporations in charge. Youre saying that to smear Libertarians. The government chooses to help corporations and picks winners and losers every day.

Some seem to have a disillusionment of what government is supposed to do. A few readers mentioned its fascism taking hold more than anything. I stand corrected. Government limiting choices of consumers.

Consumers should be able to make choices in a competitive environment that allows businesses to flourish.

Susan D. Anderson, what proof do you have the Recorder isnt printing letters from non-whites? Does the Recorder have a white-only policy? Not seeking comments from non-whites isnt racist, because my guess is the paper isnt only seeking comments from whites.

Blacks were better off before the welfare state. There were Black-only schools that did better than mostly white schools. Busing Blacks to white schools wasnt a success. Read more about those from Thomas Sowell.

Thomas Sowell examines legislation years after it passes to find the results. He talks about how liberals dont care about the effects of bad legislation. Passing a feel-good bill is what matters to liberals.

Kudos to Howard Grant, John P. ORourke, and Ruth Witty.

The Athol Daily News should have a political face-off between anyone on the left and Thomas Sowell.

Read the original post:

The Recorder - My Turn: Black conservatives ... excuse me? - The Recorder

ESSEX COUNTY, NJ John Mirrione knew it was a longshot that he'd win a seat in Congress.

After all, the political neophyte was running against incumbent U.S. Rep. Donald Payne Jr., a Democratic Party stalwart in the 10th District who ended up with 241,522 votes almost six times that of the Republican nominee, Jennifer Zinone, who had 40,298.

Payne also soundly defeated independent candidates Akil Khalfani and Khaliah Fitchette, who garnered 3,537 and 3,480 votes, respectively.

When the certified results were finally in, Mirrione, the Libertarian Party nominee, stood at 1,172 votes. And at first glance, it might seem like a discouraging result for the karate expert, small business owner and U.S. Air Force veteran. But each of those ballots represents something bigger than a single campaign, he says: empowerment.

"I feel that now more than ever people were more open to a third-party viewpoint," Mirrione recently told Patch after being asked to reflect on the 2020 election.

"With the growing disparity of the democratic and republication parties, people were asking way more questions with deep overall concern of our government and its policies," Mirrione said. "This all mixed in with a media war just added to the ongoing confusion."

There's an overwhelming temptation to give in to conformity when you turn in your ballot, he said. But having the guts to vote for the candidate you think is the best choice regardless of their odds can change the status quo.

"People feel that they are forced to vote for a party line and have no control of the candidate selection," Mirrione said. "By going the third-party route, people felt more empowered to have an opportunity having more of a voice that counts in government leadership and policy."

"As a first-time candidate for Congress as a Libertarian, I felt proud that the majority of those who voted for me were a vote I earned, instead of it being a vote for a party line," Mirrione said.

When he launched his campaign, Mirrione said that no matter how the grand finale turned out, simply making the ballot was a decisive victory because it gave him a platform to spread the word about his anti-bullying work, which will continue after the election.

Drawing on his own past of being picked on while growing up in Brooklyn and Long Island, Mirrione embarked on a 17-city crusade in 2010. Digging into his own pocket for food and gas, he visited schools and YMCAs across the nation, speaking to kids about "being self-empowered, believing in themselves and knowing that anything is possible."

Soon, Mirrione found himself chatting with the likes of Deepak Chopra about his anti-bullying efforts and regimen of positive thinking.

In 2015, Mirrione formed the Harmony Power Foundation, an organization that is dedicated to "standing up to bullying and standing for human equality." Mirrione eventually scored a huge victory when the Elizabeth Public School District decided to incorporate his Harmony Power Awards program into its anti-bullying curriculum at no additional cost to the district.

Currently, Mirrione is calling for the creation of a "national anti-bullying liaison" in Washington D.C. in order to help people of all ages overcome emotional, mental and physical abuse from bullying.

"In the midst of this current political transition, we have a unique opportunity in front of us as a country," Mirrione said. "We can reaffirm our commitment to our children to raise them in a world where they don't need to be afraid where they can go about their life and become the best person they can be."

"By doing so, we might actually see there is more that unites us rather than divides us," he added.

The 10th District includes the following municipalities: Bloomfield, East Orange, Glen Ridge, Irvington, Maplewood, Montclair, Newark, Orange, South Orange, West Orange, Bayonne, Jersey City, Hillside, Linden, Rahway, Roselle, Roselle Park and Union Township.

Send local news tips and correction requests to eric.kiefer@patch.com

Learn more about posting announcements or events to your local Patch site. Sign up for Patch email newsletters.

Continued here:

NJ Libertarian Says 2020 Election Empowered Third-Party Voters - Patch.com

It's tempting to wonder if history is made by stupid people as much as by clever people. The reputation of former adviser to Boris Johnson, Dominic Cummings, was enhanced by a television drama which presented him as a deep thinker and a deft communicator, two gifts that don't always go together.

ot that there weren't other voices ready to explain how bumping yourself out of the single market was effectively imposing sanctions on yourself, the sort of treatment we usually reserve for rogue states.

One of the qualities of a truly great leader must surely be the ability to hold fast against all derision when you are sure you are right. It is also the mark of a fanatic.

We only get to find out which term applies when the story is over and history has passed its judgment.

Fortunately, there are tests we can apply to political figures while they are still alive. Arlene Foster agitated for Brexit without foreseeing the danger of a weakening of the Union. It's hard to see how posterity will vindicate that.

Maybe foreign capital will now pour into Northern Ireland and we'll all be so rich in 10 years' time that we'll be called the Orange Tiger.

We got a nice insight into the workings of the mind of one of our conviction politicians on Any Questions on Radio 4 last week. Sammy Wilson came out as seriously sceptical of the efforts to curtail the Covid-19 virus.

He said the Government and advisers had succumbed to "Project Fear". This is a phrase that was coined to dismiss the warnings about how bad Brexit could be. Sammy applied it to the reaction to the virus. Now it's the handy phrase for mocking any doubts about any policy.

Sammy scoffed at the "deplorable way" in which old people have been left "cowering in their homes", because of measures to control a pandemic which has affected very few of us.

He didn't exactly say, "Give me liberty or give me death", but he did say that we are being kept in a state of perpetual fear to prepare us to accept curtailments on our liberty, as if he thinks the curtailment of liberty is the core objective.

His solution would have been to "protect the vulnerable and let others get on with their lives". He didn't say how that could be done without curtailing the liberties of older people. (It can't.)

Sammy is 67 years old. He is one of the vulnerable himself. I'm a bit worried about how red his cheeks are. He is a portly man.

The implications of what he says are that he himself should be removed from society, out of reach of a virus that could kill him, and that people who are less likely to die should be free to blithely infect themselves and each other.

So, on the one hand, he is saying that old people are cowering in their homes and, on the other, that that's where they would be anyway if he was in charge.

He is demanding freedom from curtailments and then endorsing curtailments.

Sammy rants a lot and yet one of his repeat themes is that we are all getting over-exercised about something or other. Like the chances of a united Ireland.

That question was a prompt for further self-contradiction. He said that the Government handling of the virus has demonstrated the merits of being part of the United Kingdom, a bigger and richer country.

I should have been on that programme. Somebody should have been there to point out that the Irish Republic's infection levels are proportionately about a quarter of those in Northern Ireland.

And how come these measures, which he dismissed minutes earlier as "deplorable", are now evidence of the merits of the Union?

Sammy builds up arguments on different issues and doesn't check whether they contradict each other. Then he did it again.

There was a question about whether electric cars will ever be affordable. Sammy said the Government's Green plan was "Stalinist".

This from the man who wanted the vulnerable to be sectioned off from the rest of society. He said he drives a diesel van and that people should have the option of driving whatever car they think they need.

So, one minute he is the social engineer who will lock up the vulnerable and the next he is a free market libertarian who would let anyone drive whatever they liked, regardless of the impact on the environment. He's a libertarian when it suits him.

If the threat is a virus, then the response should be targeted and thorough.

And if it is climate change, then everyone should do as they please.

We should have more of our local politicians on Any Questions in the hope that they will unpack their thinking, or lack of it, as candidly as Sammy did.

In the style of the programme, there is often a light question at the end. This was the week in which Barbara Windsor died. One of the clips played over and over again in the news reports showed her as the landlady in EastEnders, ordering someone out of her pub.

So, who would Sammy order out of his pub? The Chief Medical Officer. Sammy didn't remember his name. That's how much attention he has been paying to him.

The case against Professor Chris Whitty (write it on your cuff, Sammy) is that he ordered the pubs closed without having gathered sufficient evidence of the extent to which Covid-19 might be spread in them.

Some things have to be taken on faith and it seems to me that one of the easier ones to accept is that drunk people mingling in a bar and bumping against each other and shouting and blathering and squaring up to each other are more likely to spread infection than people sitting down to a meal, well spaced from each other.

You get the feeling that Sammy, when we were hit with a pandemic, would have spent a year gathering data on how it spread before taking measures against it.

I hope Sammy has a happy and restful retirement and that it starts soon. In fact, I hope the same for a lot of our politicians.

But one thing we have learnt in this strange year is that daft as some of our politicians are, they are not exceptional. There are others as daft everywhere.

Read the original post:

Malachi O'Doherty: Sammy Wilson is a libertarian... but only when it suits him - Belfast Telegraph