Daily Archives: April 27, 2017

Shut it down. Photo: Elijah Nouvelage/Getty Images

Since I started writing about the upsurge in illiberal left-wing thought two years ago, many of the responses have dismissed the phenomenon as the antics of silly college students, or just a series of isolated incidents that keep happening over and over for some reason. In reality, these episodes are the manifestation of a serious ideological challenge to liberalism less serious than the threat from the right, but equally necessary to defeat.

In recent days, Howard Dean argued (referring, specifically, to conservative pundit and provocateur Ann Coulter, whose speech was threatened with cancellation by Berkeley administrators) that hate speech is not protected by the First Amendment. Aaron Hanlon, a professor writing for The New Republic defended no-platforming, the left-wing tactic of shutting down public speeches by objectionable figures. An even more elaborate defense of illiberalism comes from Ulrich Baer, vice-provost for faculty, arts, humanities, and diversity at New York University, writing for the New York Times op-ed page.

The liberal ideal sees free speech as a positive-sum good, enabling an open marketplace of ideas where, in the long run, reason can prevail. (And while reason may not always carry the day, if you compare the current state of affairs to 50, or 100, or 200 years before, the liberal model looks pretty good.) Left-wing critics of liberalism instead see the free-speech rights of the oppressed and the oppressors set in zero-sum conflict, so that the expansion of one inevitably comes at the cost of the other. Baer praises recent violent protests that halted speeches by Charles Murray and Milo Yiannopoulos as, therefore, an attempt to ensure the conditions of free speech for a greater group of people, actually enhancing freedom of speech. When those views invalidate the humanity of some people, they restrict speech as a public good, he argues.

But what kinds of speech should be shut down on these grounds? Baers definition is rather vague. Some topics, such as claims that some human beings are by definition inferior to others, or illegal or unworthy of legal standing, are not open to debate because such people cannot debate them on the same terms, he writes. So Baer wants his audience to believe that his rejection of free speech amounts to no more than preventing a handful of racist cranks from expressing highly noxious views on a handful of especially sensitive topics.

But which topics would qualify? In recent years, liberals have found race or gender buried within a wide and expanding array of subjects. Indeed, one increasingly popular formulation holds that identity issues cannot be abstracted from politics at all, since all politics is identity politics. That goes a bit farther than Id put it I propose that one could discuss the relative merits of a carbon tax versus cap-and-trade without addressing identity questions but the point stands that the sensitive identity issues exception to the free-speech principle is a loophole with the capacity to swallow up the entire rule.

It is likewise highly doubtful that the need for repression would be limited to the right-wing fringe. A racist like Milo Yiannopoulos might seem like an easy case. Charles Murray is a harder case. Murray was targeted by protesters because of his work two decades before defending scientific racism in The Bell Curve (a work Ive never read except in abridged form, and which has been persuasively, to me, demolished by scholars). But the speech he attempted to deliver at Middlebury College before being shut down by a mob was not on that topic. Indeed, when some scholars distributed a copy of Murrays speech to 70 college professors, omitting the name of the author, they deemed it quite moderate. Even assuming his Bell Curve work does not merit free-speech rights, should that subject any future speeches of his to suppression?

Nearly all American politicians in both major parties support some limits on legal immigration, and some measures to enforce those laws. Virtually all of them define some human beings as unworthy of legal standing a position Baer insists does not deserve to be defended in public at all. Perfectly cogent arguments can and have been made that, say, Hillary Clinton advocates systemically racist policies or that Bernie Sanders encourages sexism. The ability to associate disagreeable ideas with the oppressor, and to quash free speech or other political rights in the name of justice for the oppressed, is a power without any clear limiting principle. Historically, states that rule on that basis tend to push that power to its farthest possible limit.

The debate has largely centered on campus free-speech battles because academia is one of the few subcultures in American life where the left can wield hegemonic power. But the problem is ideological, not generational, and one can find signs of the phenomenon creeping out into other corners of political life. The illiberal left has used the fear of Donald Trump to goad broader elements of the progressive movement to adopt their repressive methods and slogans. The slogan shut it down! has come into fashion on the left. Protesters caused the cancellation of a Trump rally last summer, and were seen chanting shut it down! at a conservative think tank this week.

The illiberal left has brought its notion that opposing views can and should be shut down into wide circulation. It has disproportionate influence within the progressive movement, but remains, for now, a noisy minority. But noisy minorities like the cranks and kooks of the far right who had been, 60 years ago, banished to the margins of Republican politics have a way of developing over time into majorities, unless they meet forceful opposition.

Former Obama White House Photographers Instagram Shade Reaches New Heights in Honor of Trumps First 100 Days

Donald Trump Delivers Counterpoint to Trevor Noahs Fake News on the Daily Show

Gary Cohn and Steve Mnuchin introduced the Biggest Individual and Business Tax Cut In American History, details to be determined.

Believing in error that an appeals court made a district court decision he could have avoided, the president lashes out ineffectually at judges again.

Victims of Immigration Crime Engagement will aid the victims of crimes committed by undocumented immigrants (unless those victims are undocumented).

The candidates have spent $14 million so far and heavy punches arent even being thrown yet.

Usually the House minority party isnt popular this early in a midterm cycle. But the Dems are now.

Thats quite a break from her father.

Senator McConnell requested the briefing, and Trump demanded that the lawmakers come to his home because hes a gracious host.

He will meet with Australian prime minister (and frenemy) Malcolm Turnbull aboard the U.S.S. Intrepid.

Bannons back.

The Affordable Care Act forced Congress to live under Obamacare. Now Republicans want to change that.

The worldwide leader is cutting jobs as it loses subscribers and pays more for broadcasting rights.

Trumps new plan would slash his businesss tax rate by 25 percent, while handing out other free lunches across the corporate sector.

A new poll shows that Americans are split along party lines when it comes to which conspiracy they buy into.

On Twitter, the president lashes out at the Ninth Circuit for a district court decision that his own blustering words made inevitable.

The video was available online for 20 hours before Facebook removed it.

A noisy, illiberal minority in the progressive movement might not be a minority forever.

The recent headaches for Long Island Rail Road and New Jersey Transit riders may just be the start.

Hes expected to order reviews of his predecessors environmental protections later this week.

Link:

The 'Shut It Down!' Left and the War on the Liberal Mind - New York Magazine

The Democratic Party is in a bad way. It's trying to figure out how to climb out of its historically bad position, and given the split results of the 2016 primaries (and Hillary Clinton's eventual loss), there's plenty of debate about whether the future should be aboutpurity or pragmatism.

To oversimplify things: You've got the Sen. Bernie Sanders/Sen. Elizabeth Warren wing urging a fearless focus on progressive issues (especially on the economy) even in conservative-leaning areas,and you've got the old establishment types who think appealing to the political middle with moderation is the way to go.

There haven't been many major elections this year, but this uneasy balancehas beenspotlighted in just about all of them.

In Kansas, you had liberals crying foul over the party's lack of supportfor a Democrat running in a very tough district who espoused some Sanders-ian beliefs. The party is confronted with a similar choice in Montana, where an anti-Wall Street Democrat is the underdogon May 25. Last week, Sanders (I-Vt.) momentarily questioned the progressivism of Georgia special-election candidate Jon Ossoff. Then a related controversy over Sanders's embrace of an antiabortion rights candidate for Omaha mayor led theDemocratic National Committee's chairman tosuggest Democrats must support abortion rights.

The common thread in all four is that nagging pull to the left to combat President Trump with fearless progressivism even in tough districts. But all four have also shown the limits of that approach.

In Kansas and Montana, special election candidates James Thompson and Rob Quist, respectively, have both used some of the language of the progressive left most notably on social media. Both have gotten support from Sanders backers, and Sanders will visit Montana to campaign with Quist.

But here's the prevailing images of the candidates that voters have seen in their TV ads:

These ads are carefully planned for mass consumption as the pictures these campaigns want voters to remember as they head to the polls. None of them really screams progressive Democrat.

In Kansas, nearly every Thompson ad featured him either wielding a gun or wearing a hat with a gun on it. In contrast, there was very little red meat for progressives, beyond general statements about prioritizing education and women's rights.

In Montana, one Quist ad recycles a tired campaign-ad conceit: The candidate literally shooting something with a gun.Philip Bump recapped the many, many examples of this past year, and almost all who have done it are either Republicans or Democrats running in very red areas. It is one of two Quist ads featuring a heavy gun presence.

It is, of course, possible to marry this pro-gun message with a progressive economic one. But the prevailing public images of both candidates are not about a $15 minimum wage; they're guns.

In that other special election this month, Sanders momentarily questioned Ossoff's progressivism despite Democrats making Ossoff a cause celebre the firstpossible sign of a progressive, Democratic backlash against Trump. It was a curious decision in the first place, and one Sanders ultimately backed off of, endorsing Ossoff.

But while he was wavering on Ossoff, Sanders was on his way to campaigning in Omaha with mayoral candidate Heath Mello, who has a progressive message but also has a history of supporting abortion restrictions involving ultrasounds. And Sanderseven told NPR this(again, while questioning Ossoff's progressivism): And we have got to appreciate where people come from, and do our best to fight for the pro-choice agenda. But I think you just can't exclude people who disagree with us on one issue.

The predictable outcry there led DNC Chairman Thomas Perez toapparently declare an abortion litmus test for Democrats. Every Democrat, like every American, should support a womans right to make her own choices about her body and her health, Perez said. House and Senate Minority Leaders Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) quickly differed with Perez, saying it's okay to be an antiabortion Democrat as about 1 in 4 Democratic voters are.

In all four cases, Democrats have flirted with a purity focus in four tough areas of the country. Each shows how difficult that is to pull off.

And that's got to be frustrating for progressives. After all, Republicans have fought over purity for years, with the tea party giving the GOP establishment repeated fits. And the GOP only continued its ascent in Congress and now to the presidency. Why can't Democrats do the same with progressivism? Why can't they run like Sanders in Montana and Wichita and Omaha and suburban Atlanta?

The reason is pretty simple: reality. Because of the way our population is distributed, Democrats can't afford to enforce the kind of doctrinaire purity that the tea partywas so successful in policing.

Here's how I put itback in February:

There are simply more red states and more red congressional districts. Republicans took over the House and Senate in recent years largely because they knocked off some of the final hangers-on among Democrats in conservative-leaning places. It first happened in the South; then it spread to Appalachia and the Midwest. ...

The 2016 election is a good example of this. Trump, as everyone knows, lost the popular vote by two full points, 48percent to 46 percent. But despite that loss, he actually won 230 out of 435 congressional districts, compared with 205 for Hillary Clinton, according to numbers compiled by Daily Kos Elections. And in the Senate, he won 30 out of 50 states.

So basically, 53 percent of House districts are Republican and 60 out of 100senators hail from red states, according to the 2016 election results (in which the GOP, again, lost the popular vote).

Democrats won the House because socially and culturally conservative candidates carried conservative states districts in the South and along the Rust Belt in 2006 and 2008. Schumer led the recruiting effort in the Senate, and Pelosi became speaker as a result of then-DCCC Chairman Rahm Emanuel's political pragmatism. They know the deal.

The Democrats' tendency these days will be to demandtheir party be as un-Trump and un-Republican as possible in trying to win back control of Congress. These examples show how bumpy that path is already proving.

Read the original:

The Democratic Party is stumbling toward liberal purity - The ... - Washington Post

Mark Cuban, Shark Tank billionaire, investor in 150 companies, impresario, and dedicated tech-aficionado, hates it when people tell him he toes an ideological line. Sometimes he just laughs, sometimes he rolls his eyesand he almost always corrects that assertion. I think for myself! he told Tucker Carlson last week while on his show. Im not a liberal. The way Cuban processes politics, personal interests, and personalities of political candidates is not unlike a swath of Americans on both sides of the political aisle.

This is the kind of view many Americans held when they elected Donald Trump for president, and likely still do. The difference between them and Mark Cuban is that theyre still happy with the president. The maverick Mavericks owner, and many who think like him, arent, never were, and likely never will be.

On CNNs New Day last Friday, Cuban told anchors Chris Cuomo and Alisyn Camerota about a conversation with a friend of his, who described Trump as political chemotherapy, a poisonous cure to an ailing political culture. His friend voted for Trump hoping he would change the political system much like chemotherapy changes cancer. Cuban said, If thats the way youre evaluating Donald Trump, hes doing a phenomenal job.

I asked Cuban Friday, via his Cyberdust app, about the political chemotherapy comment that made several headlines. He corrected this. I didnt say I agreed with the political chemotherapy idea, he told me. Rather that people voted for him to be disruptive. People voted for him knowing the cure was as bad as the disease.

Indeed, on New Day, Cuban gave Trump a C- for his first 100 days, citing his signing a bevy of executive orders he didnt understand and failing to pass a health care bill to replace the ACA legislation, a signature promise of the Trump campaign. Gallup reports Trumps job approval in his first quarter is, at 41 percent, the lowest of any modern president by 14 points.

Yet, like the mass of Americans who cast their ballot for Trump, Cuban holds many ideas that conservatives traditionally embrace. Conservatism for economics is fine. Taxes and smaller government can still do well, Cuban told me, with one caveatthe elephant in the room: Unless they pass Trumpcare. If that happens they [Republicans] lose in 2018. Cuban, unlike most conservatives, believes some kind of socialized medicine should be implemented, though he admits Obamacare is flawed and needs to be fixed. He shared his own ideas for correcting the system on his blog.

Still, Cuban is a fan of Ayn Rands economic philosophies, cant stand the SEC, and thinks the best government is a small, efficient government that stays out of an entrepreneurs way (for the most part). So why didnt he shill for Trump? Why did he show up to one of the presidential debates as a guest of Hillary Clinton to the chagrin of conservatives everywhere?

It all came down to personality and qualifications. Trump is an idiot, Cuban told me, and its not the first time hes told me that. Despite Cubans business interests that drive strains of conservative thinking, he still lobbied for Clinton because he believed she would make the better president. Cuban repeated, [Trump] is an idiot. Ill support a ham sandwich over an idiot. I pushed back and reminded Cuban in terms of business and investments, Clinton advocated for policies that would increase regulations and taxestwo things he hates.

Cuban responded, I can fight attempts to regulate. I can lobby whatever. I cant fight stupidity. I cant stop a moron that didnt think it prudent to read about the relationship between China and the DPRK. Or might drop bombs that causes a war because it was harder to figure out than he thought. We can change tax law. We cant change stupid.

Like many Americans, Cuban isnt all Democrat or all Republicanhe cherry-picks from both sides of the political aisle. And like Cuban, a swath of voters thought Clinton the better candidate. Unlike him, another swath of voters thought Trump would make an ideal leader of a movement for which disgusted voters have long yearned, not despite his lack of qualifications but because of them.

As Cuban said on New Day, Some people say [Trump] started a movement; I think the movement found him. This explains why Trump won more Democratic counties than anyone predicted, because they were tired of voting for politicians who do the same thing repeatedly. They, too, seem to believe theres a disease in this country and Trump might be the curewhether holistic or poisonous, that remains to be seen.

While this dichotomy in Cuban is unpredictable and even disheartening for conservatives who agree with so many of his Randian ideas, Cuban isnt a traitor because he never swore allegiance to conservatism in the first place. Like many Americans today, Cuban doesnt have a deep political ideology that guides himjust sharp observations, pragmatic solutions, and a laser-focus on business, the economy, and investing. When conservativesand liberalshear him advocate for smaller, more efficient, government, declaim against the SEC and lobby for fewer regulations, they hope for a deeper ideology that drives those ideas. But that is his ideology. Everything else is extraneous.

Thank You!

You are now subscribed to the Daily Digest and Cheat Sheet. We will not share your email with anyone for any reason

Many Americans think the same way, which is, as Twitter likes to say, How we got Trump. Will he be as disruptive as voters on both sides of the political aisle hoped? His voters likely think he is but Cuban remains nonplussed: I dont think he has been. If thats the case, its hard to see a scenario where the billionaire on Shark Tank who has long sparred with the billionaire in the White House becomes satisfied with what Trump does in office. Unless of course Trump starts to fix stupid.

The rest is here:

Mark Cuban: Trump?s an ?Idiot,? but I?m Not a Liberal - Daily Beast

The recent poison gas attack in Syria, Americas stepped up military activities in Afghanistan, a presidential power grab in Turkey and the clownish bellicosity of North Koreas leader have overshadowed an important development closer to home: left-wing populisms slow-but-steady decline in the Americas. Just a few years ago left-wing populism was on the rise, embraced in one form or another by Argentina, Bolivia, Ecuador, Guyana, Honduras, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Venezuela and even Chile. Today, even the Peoples World, the news organ of the Communist Party USA, concedes the pink tide may be receding.

The recent presidential vote in Ecuador confirms this.

The election pitted Guillermo Lasso, a former banker who campaigned on a free-market reform platform, against the aptly named Lenn Moreno, who outgoing President Rafael Correa had hand-picked to be his successor.

As strong-man presidents (right and left) often do, Correa made sure that Moreno won the early April election, a runoff contest between the two candidates who pulled the most votes in an earlier contest.

How could Moreno lose? Correa had all but destroyed Ecuadors free press, turning the media into Moreno cheerleaders, and the election itself was plagued with irregularities that led to claims of fraud.

For example, the election tribunals computer system conveniently went down after early results seemed to point to a Lasso victory, which credible exit polls had predicted after the voting booths had closed. When the computer system was restored, lo and behold Moreno was firmly on his way to a win of more than 51 percent.

Other irregularities, most notably inconsistencies between some of the original election tally sheets and those showed by the electoral body, as well as episodes of police harassment against pollsters who put Lasso ahead the night of the vote, have thrown a dark shadow over the whole process.

Given Correas control of the election appeals tribunal (the TSE, or Supreme Electoral Tribunal) and the judiciary in general, we will never know whether Moreno was the legitimate victor.

What we do know this: at least half the country is desperate to get rid of left-wing populism and follow the path that Brazil and Argentina have taken in recent months, replacing governments closely allied with Venezuela with governments more in tune with the rule of law.

Correas decade-old government received more oil revenue than any other in the countrys history and used the money to establish an all-too-typical Latin American state based on patronage, corruption and the concentration of power.

The more than $300 billion that poured into the governments coffers enabled Correa to throw money at his people, giving them the illusion of prosperity, or at least protection, for a while, which is the reason a large percentage of Ecuadorians continue to support the government. (Almost 40 percent voted for Moreno in the elections first round, a proportion that probably also owed something to the wheelchair-bound candidates soft-spoken personal history as a symbol of the disabled).

But, of course, the price of oil went down and the mirage evaporated. Ecuadors economy came to a stop in 2015 and shrank in 2016. It is barely expected to grow this year.

Moreno has signaled that hes ready to turn the page from Correas confrontational politics and adopt a more friendly attitude towards the opposition and the countrys weakened institutions, such as business and the press. We will see.

For now, it is important to note that millions of Ecuadorians stand ready to push their country in the direction of globalization and free markets.

If Moreno tries to prolong Correas socioeconomic policies and political authoritarianism, not even the government-controlled electoral system will be able to ensure continuation of the regime. He will be handing almost certain victory to the opposition in the next election.

Alvaro Vargas Llosa is a senior fellow with the Independent Institute, Oakland, Calif. His latest book is Global Crossings: Immigration, Civilization and America.

Image:The march organized by Guillermo Lasso, leader of the movement created, toured the main artery of the city. Wikimedia Commons/Agencia de Noticias ANDES

See the article here:

Ecuador and the Case of the Liberal Losers - The National Interest Online

Liberal protesters stormed the Washington, D.C., headquarters of the conservative Heritage Foundation on Tuesday but the demonstration backfired when Heritage later took to Twitter using the event to promote one of its policy papers.

Just before noon, around 200 protesters marched up to and inside the conservative organizations Capitol Hill offices. Within about 20 minutes, however, they were gone, the Washington Examiner reported.

The protesters voiced their opposition to President Donald Trumps proposed budget blueprint. Congress has not yet voted on a 2018 fiscal year budget but is expected to do so by Friday night to keep the federal government from shutting down. Its unlikely that budget a deal later this week will include funding for a southern border wall.

Multiple federal agencies, including the EPA, will likely face drastic cuts as a result of Republicans controlling the House and Senate.

Protesters Tuesday at the Heritage Foundation seized upon the Republicans priorities.

Water not walls, protesters were heard chanting in one video tweeted out by Peoples Action, the liberal group that organized the protest.

Shut it down, other protesters shouted from inside the usually quiet office building.

Peoples Action, in a separate tweet, accused Heritage of being Trumps think tank.

Heritage employees fought back, displaying repeal Obamacare signs in their windows as protesters poured out from the lobby and onto the sidewalk.

The Heritage then took to Twitter, using the protest as a means to further promote their conservative agenda.

Thank you @pplsaction for the opportunity to tell more people about our budget to tackle the $20 Trillion debt! Heritage tweeted, along with a link to its proposed 2018 fiscal blueprint.

Heritage vowed it would not be bullied or silenced by staged protesters backed by progressive special interest groups connected to George Soros.

Heritage will not back down. We will keep fighting for a responsible budget, a pro-growth tax system, Obamacare repeal.. the organization wrote.

Read the rest here:

Liberal protesters storm Heritage Foundation's Washington, DC ... - TheBlaze.com

CUNY Liberal-Activist Graduation Speaker Sparks Controversy Wall Street Journal (subscription) In the wake of controversy over conservative speakers at UC Berkeley, the City University of New York has spurred its own debate by selecting a liberal activist to give a commencement address. The speaker, Linda Sarsour, an ally of New York City Mayor ...

More here:

CUNY Liberal-Activist Graduation Speaker Sparks Controversy - Wall Street Journal (subscription)