Daily Archives: June 24, 2017

Sundays New York Times contains a solicitous, attentive look at a backward, benighted place North Carolina, where one political party has deviously seized control of the state legislature. The Republicans of North Carolina, says the Times, have not only run quickly through the conservative policy checklist, they have gone so far as to skew the balance of power in the state in their favor.

Imagine a local political party so dominant that it can enact its agenda at will and even skew the balance of power in its favor. Actually, the Times neednt have ventured so far south to find such tyranny, as New York City itself is a virtual one-party state and will likely remain so for at least the near future.

For instance, the City Council has 48 Democrats and three Republicans, who mostly sit quietly and attend to their constituents non-ideological concerns: street repaving tends to top the New York City Republicans agenda. All three citywide elected officials Mayor de Blasio, Comptroller Scott Stringer and Public Advocate Letitia James are passionate progressive Democrats who continually try to top each others radical proposals. Public Advocate James wants the Department of Education to appoint a chief diversity officer? Well, Comptroller Stringer will launch a task force to funnel city money to companies with greater racial diversity on their boards so take that.

This is an election year in the city, but you are forgiven if you hadnt noticed. The citywide elected officials are each running for re-election and are virtually unopposed. Not that no one else is running: Mayor de Blasio has about a dozen primary challengers, but none is a serious candidate. Ditto for the comptroller, the public advocate, the borough presidents and the City Council. It is virtually a maxim in New York that incumbents get re-elected.

Partly this is because only Democrats win, so the real race is for the Democratic nomination, and Democratic primaries are heavily weighted in favor of the party favorites. Local county machines in Queens, The Bronx and Brooklyn still have the clout to steer would-be challengers into patronage positions as an inducement not to run and can coordinate campaign help from political staffers who volunteer time away from their government-paid jobs to assist needy candidates.

Sometimes you dont even have to run for the partys nomination to get it. In 2015 longtime Bronx DA Robert Johnson won his primary unopposed. He then decided he wanted to be a judge instead of district attorney. Since party-controlled county committees decide state Supreme Court judgeship nominations, it was a simple process for the well-connected Johnson (and his wife, actually, who also became a judge) to get the nod from the Bronx machine, which was controlled by then-Assemblyman, now-Speaker Carl Heastie.

This is an election year in the city, but you are forgiven if you hadnt noticed. The citywide elected officials are each running for re-election and are virtually unopposed.

Johnson then resigned from his post as Bronx DA and left his ballot line open. Ballot vacancies are filled by county party committees, so Bronx boss Heastie was able to insert his own favorite candidate, Judge Darcel Clark, onto the ballot. An annoying open primary was avoided, and Heasties machine retained control of the Bronx court system.

A similar machination took place in 1998, when longtime Queens Congressman Tom Manton won the Democratic nomination for his seat in a walkover and then put in his retirement papers. With the same laws on filling ballot vacancies in effect, Manton called his protg, Assemblyman Joe Crowley, to inform him he would be the Democratic nominee for Congress instead. Crowley is now the Queens County Democratic boss and occupies a top leadership role within the House Democrats. His control of County, as the Queens political machine is known, is tight and very profitable: Control of the Surrogates Court, which handles probated estates, brings in millions of dollars annually to the small circle of connected attorneys who are assigned the cases.

If you talk to any elected official in the city, they will all agree that council member is the best job to have. The term is four years, so you dont have to campaign very often; it is local, with no annoying trips to Albany; and best of all, the pay is great when reform was enacted, council members got a 35 percent raise to $148,500. Given that one-third of the council has no job experience aside from being a staffer for another elected official, thats not chump change.

A few council seats will be opening up this year due to term limits, and in one case, early retirement. About half of those seats will be filled by state legislators who can have them for the taking. One term-limited council member, Inez Dickens, even resigned her seat ahead of time so she could run for the Assembly seat left vacant by Keith Wright, who ran for Congress. Her council seat was then taken by state Senator Bill Perkins, who had held the seat before Dickens was first elected. These two-steps are not uncommon: Brooklyn husband-and-wife tag team Charles and Inez Barron swapped their council and Assembly seats when his term was up.

In the Bronx, state Senator Ruben Diaz Sr. will take over Annabel Palmas council seat; she wanted to replace him in the Senate but was informed by the party bosses that Assemblyman Luis Sepulveda is next in line. So Palma will have to take Sepulvedas Assembly seat instead.

New York City is politically a mess: If it werent for massive tax revenues from Wall Street, our elected officials wouldnt be able to pretend that spending other peoples money counts as leadership. When the Times claps its hand to its cheek in horror that the Republicans in North Carolina have seized control of the General Assembly for the first time in a century, we have to wonder if they are really that nave or just pointing south so they dont have to look at the disaster in our own back yard.

Seth Barron is associate editor of City Journal and project director of the NYC Initiative at the Manhattan Institute.

Read the original:

This NY Times story exposes the paper's liberal hypocrisy - New York Post

Outgoing Liberal party federal director Andrew Bragg (left) shakes hands with Andrew Hirst, the new party director in Sydney on Friday. Photograph: Dan Himbrechts/AAP

Australias Liberal party has launched a new website that it says will help seduce swing voters its way and challenge rival campaigning organisations such as Getup!.

The acting Liberal party director, Andrew Bragg, launched The Fair Go website on Saturday, which is operated by the party.

Bragg used his speech to the partys federal council as a call to arms to modernise or perish. He said the party had to deal with a cashed up cabal of opposition to its interests.

Senior members of government and Liberal figures have been taking aim at organisations such as Getup!, which have excelled at developing novel and effective digital campaigns at a time when the Liberal party has struggled to keep pace.

The Fair Go site appears to be, in part, a response to some of these new types of campaigning and, according to Bragg, will help bolster the partys efforts to seize the opportunities in the digital age.

The WordPress site includes posts with titles such as Women are just people, Whos your grand-daddy? and From laissez-faire to much, much fairer.

It also includes three words of the week that will change weekly. The inaugural locutions are needs based, union and slamming.

A review of the partys last election campaign by Andrew Robb set out a series of concerns with the Liberal partys election campaign efforts, and found they were being outgunned and outspent by Labor and progressive activist groups.

Bragg told the federal council: Publish or perish must be our credo.

He said the website will be a publication which reaches beyond the existing cohort of fellow travellers to speak to undecided and swing voters.

It is designed to support the Coalitions overarching narrative into social platforms and arm supporters with bottom up perspectives on public policy issues.

The website appears to feature a cast of characters mostly linked to the Liberal party.

Parnell McGuiness, a communications consultant who is the managing director of Thought Broker, is listed as the editor of the site. Penny Fischer, a Camden Liberal councillor and the daughter of Pru Goward, has also produced work for the site. Brigid Meney, a policy officer at Cornerstone Group Australia and former Liberal party political adviser, has contributed as well.

The sites privacy policy makes it clear that the Liberal party collects users personal information and may contact them if they sign up to the site.

It is Braggs final speech in his role as acting director of the party following Brian Loughnanes departure. Former Liberal party staffer Andrew Hirst has been named the new director.

It is not the first time major parties have attempted more aggressive communication strategies.

The Labor party launched the Labor Herald in 2015, which produced news and analysis for the party faithful.

It no longer publishes content, and the website now directs users to a page that says it is currently on hiatus.

See more here:

Liberals launch website to lure swing voters and take on activist groups - The Guardian

Fifty-four years ago this month, former President John F. Kennedy delivered the Strategy of Peace, a powerful address that captured Americas indispensable leadership at the height of the Cold War. Kennedy knew that our country could not guard against the Soviet Union alone, for he believed that genuine peace must be the product of many nations, the sum of many acts.

Incredibly, the man who now leads the United States seems to find himself locked in an alarming and perilous embrace with the Russian government. These ties threaten to weaken a system of alliances that have held Russiaand countless other threats to the international communityat bay since the conclusion of the Second World War.

Watergate Lawyer: I Witnessed Nixon's Downfalland I've Got a Warning for Trump

In his Senate testimony two weeks ago, former FBI Director James Comey affirmed a disturbing suspicion: that Donald Trump first undermined Comey, by leaning on him to drop his investigation of former National Security-Adviser Michael Flynn, and then removed him from his post. Since then, events have escalated at a dizzying pace: Trump accused Comey of lying under oath about their interactions earlier this year, even as he cheered Comeys public assertion that the president wasnt under FBI investigation. Soon, reports emerged that Special Counsel Robert Mueller is investigating obstruction-of-justice allegations against the presidentrevelations Trump was none too happy about. And all the while, rumors have continued to swirl that Trump may fire both Mueller and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, whos overseeing the special counsel inquiry.

But Trumps reckless handling of these events should not distract from a startling reality: As the president faces accusations of colluding with the Russians during last years campaign, his policies in office have aligned almost perfectly with the Kremlins goals. If Moscow wanted its interference in Americas election to yield dividends, it could hardly have hoped for more.

Just as importantly, while Trump has expressed concern over the cloud the Russia investigation generated, he has seemed indifferent overall to Russias direct attempts to interfere with the American democratic process. According to Comeys testimony, Trump never asked him about the meddling, or how to prevent similar interference in the future. Not once.

Trump himself has seemingly courted the favor of Russian President Vladimir Putin since the 2016 presidential campaign. Hes repeatedly praised Putins leadership, refused to condemn Russian efforts to disrupt the U.S. system of free elections, and openly encouraged Russian hacking of the Hillary Clinton campaign. Fridays explosive report from The Washington Post confirmed that Putin was deeply and directly involved in an operation to hurt Clintons candidacy and help elect Trump.

Whats more, in every way he can, Trump has deferred to Russia on matters of foreign policy. After Russian forces deployed their hacking tools during the recent French presidential election, Trump invited Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov to the White House and failed to repudiate the attack against a vital American ally. Instead, during his meeting with Lavrov, Trump divulged highly sensitive classified information provided by Israel, another crucial U.S. partner. (That May 10 meeting also came a day after Trump removed Comey, who was leading the inquiries into collusion; Trump told the Russians that the directors dismissal had alleviated great pressure on him.) Even more recently, the Trump administration has reportedly taken steps to return two diplomatic compounds that former President Barack Obama stripped from Russia following its actions during last years election.

To make matters worse, Trump has done far more than just extend open arms toward the Russian government. He wavered on the United States commitment to defend its fellow members of NATO; his aides have reportedly tried to undermine the European Union; and he himself has alienated key partners by lashing out at individual leaders and pulling out of the Paris Agreement.

When Americans step back and consider this stunning series of actions, they should be left with unsettling questions: What are Donald Trumps reasons for doing this? What exactly does he have to hide?

In the Strategy of Peace, Kennedy described his belief that peace must be dynamic, not static, changing to meet the challenge of each new generation. We must all, in our daily lives, live up to the age-old faith that peace and freedom walk together.

Today, it is the responsibility of this generation of Americans to help preserve international peace, to honor the allies who have stood by their side for decades, and to maintain the United States place as the leader of the free world.

The American system of checks and balances is only as strong as the leaders who have the character and courage to enforce them. Unless they denounce and punish any attempt to interfere with the special counsels investigation, demand accountability from the administration, and put their duty to their country over their duty to any political party, those checks and balances wont protect Americas democracy.

Go here to read the rest:

Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin, and the Future of the Liberal World ... - The Atlantic

President Donald Trump listens to a demonstration during the "American Leadership in Emerging Technology" event in the East Room of the White House in Washington, D.C. on June 22, 2017.Jabin BotsfordThe Washington Post/Getty Images

In 1997, Fareed Zakaria wrote an important article for Foreign Affairs detailing the rise of illiberal democracy around the world. He contrasted the term with liberal democracy, which he described as marked not only by free and fair elections, but also by the rule of law, a separation of powers, and the protection of basic liberties of speech, assembly, religion, and property. In fact, this latter bundle of freedoms what might be termed constitutional liberalism is theoretically different and historically distinct from democracy. He then wrote a book on the subject.

Twenty years later, Council of Foreign Relations President Richard Haass tweeted out the following: years ago @FareedZakaria wrote the book re illiberal democracies. i never thought this would fit the US but we r getting too close 4 comfort. I am a big fan of Richard (and Fareed), but I disagree with Haass on this one. America remains a strong liberal democracy however messy and dysfunctional even in the age of Donald Trump. Heres why.

1. Free Press Endures

Since Donald Trump announced his candidacy, the press has been aggressive in fact-checking and challenging him at every turn. At times, a bit unfair; 80% of the coverage of Trumps first 100 days was negative, compared to just 41% for President Obama's. Many U.S. journalists have decided that professional responsibility demands a much more confrontational approach to this White House. The result has been coverage that is sometimes unfair and over-the-top. This drives Trump up the wall, because theres little he can do about it. In an illiberal democracy, the state uses all sorts of tools to dominate the press and shape public opinion. Trump has friendly news outlets that help maintain support from his base, but the rest of the media is in no danger of falling under Trumps sway.

2. Americans Love Going to Court

Americans go to court. A lot. And a lot of Americans become lawyers. As of 2009, for every 100,000 people, the U.S. has 380 lawyers. For comparison purposes, Japan has just 23 lawyers per 100,000 people; France has 70 (2010 and 2006 figures, respectively). More important than the number of lawyers is the continued faith Americans have in the legal system as of 2016, 61% of Americans say they have at least a fair amount of trust in the judicial branch of the federal government, as opposed to the 51% of people who are confident in the executive branch and 35% of people who trust the legislative branch. In a liberal democracy, individuals and organizations can slow and alter the crafting of law and regulations by tying things up in court. And Americans are game in the first two weeks of Trumps presidency, his Administration was sued 55 times (compared to five lawsuits over the same time against Obama and Clinton, and four against George W. Bush).

3. The Courts Remain Independent

And the courts continue to limit executive power. In an illiberal democracy (see Russia and Turkey) the fix is already in when the gavel falls. For example, to tighten his grip on power, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has purged the judicial system in Turkey after last summers failed coup attempt, banishing more than 4,000 judges and prosecutors (25% of the countrys total). Trump would probably settle for ditching the judges that have struck down his travel ban no fewer than eight times in various courts (and by both Democratic and Republican-appointed judges). Maybe add the federal judge that blocked the Administrations ability to withhold funds from sanctuary cities , jurisdictions which ban law enforcement agencies from investigating, interrogating, or arresting people for immigration enforcement.

4. There's No Deep State

To hear Trump and his surrogates tell it, any political defeat or unflattering news story about him should be attributed to a deep state hell-bent on trying to oust him. But there is no deep state in America, just a deep bureaucracy. Its made up of professional civil servants who have dedicated years of their lives (in 2015, a full-time permanent federal civilian employee had an average of 13.7 years of service ) to specific policy goals, whether from the left or right. Asking career officials at the Environmental Protection Agency to suddenly stop believing in climate change because the man elected in November doesnt much care for science was never going to get much traction. There are obviously people in the White House and throughout the executive branch that are sabotaging political and policy moves they believe harm the nations interests, as they define them. Vladimir Putin doesnt have this problem.

The bigger problem may be that the state isnt deep enough: As of this week, the Trump White House has only managed to confirm 44 of the 558 Senate-confirmable positions in the federal government. One hundred and five people have been formally nominated, five are awaiting nomination, and 404 jobs have no nominee whatsoever. Obama had confirmed at 170 by the same time into his own presidency; George W. Bush, 130.

5. Congress Has Its Own Agenda

Finally, Republicans in Congress have an agenda: Repeal Obamacare as they promised; roll back Obama-era regulations; and cut taxes. If Trump can help, great. If they can do it entirely without Trumps input, that might be even better. And if they start to believe that Trump will prevent them from passing their agenda and maybe cost them control of Congress? Theyll cross that bridge only if they feel they have to. But they are not a rubber stamp, as in an illiberal democracy. And the Senate voting 98-2 for more sanctions against Russia (and congressional oversight over them) last week against Trumps wishes offers more proof.

Any democracy can become illiberal. But its dangerous to argue that Trump has already created one. If illiberalism one day really does threaten Americas constitutional liberalism, it will be that much harder to raise the alarm if the charge has already been raised and dismissed.

See the original post:

5 Reasons Why America Is Still a Strong (If Dysfunctional) Liberal Democracy - TIME

It was described as a "world event in the heart of Berlin." And judging by the overwhelming response both at home and abroad to the opening of the determinedly "liberal mosque" in a Protestantchurch in Berlin's Moabit district, this assessment is justified.

Media representatives from all over the world wanted to be present when Seyran Ates, a German-Turkish lawyer and women's rights activist, presented her reform project to the public: an integrative mosque for everyone. The Ibn Rushd-Goethe Mosque welcomes all Muslims, irrespective of denomination and sexual orientation.

Furthermore, this house of worship - the only one of its kind in Germany - has explicitly abolished the segregation of the sexes during prayer. Men and women can pray alongside one another. A man and a woman led the first Friday prayers together. And - an important point, given the heated Islam debates in this country - the "female imam" did not wear a headscarf!

Loay Mudhoon is editor in chief of Qantara.de

Liberal Islam for the non-Muslim majority?

The fact that reactions from predominantly Muslim countries to the opening of the Ibn Rushd Goethe Mosque have been both hostile and particularly forceful is not really any great surprise - not, at least, if one is aware of the repressive realities in these countries. This is true, too, of Egypt and Turkey, where protests against the Berlin mosque were particularly fierce. The religious authorities in both of these countries have been muzzled politically.

However, what's more interesting than the predictable reactions from Muslim countries abroad are the reactions in Germany itself. These were uniformly positive. Almost all the media celebrated the new institution as a place of open-minded, emancipated Islam. As expected, conservative circles as well as people and interest groups who are vocally critical of Islam see this kind of mosque as an alternative to the mosques of orthodox Islamic groups. In their view, "this Islam" is the only one that's suited to Germany.

This fervent enthusiasm in the media and political realm cannot, however, gloss over two fundamental problems.

First: So-called "liberal Islam" consists of individuals, public personalities; it has no structure to speak of. In Germany there are now a number of civil society initiatives by liberal Muslims, but their level of organization is still low, as is their ability to connect with the conservative Muslim mainstream.

Second: So far, those who represent liberal Islam are still very vague as far as content is concerned. They usually define themselves by their rejection of conservative Islam. And that's just too little substance to have a big impact.

Respecting the plurality of Muslims

No question about it: The opening of the Ibn Rushd-Goethe Mosque is a courageous and remarkable step. But outside Germany liberal mosques like these are not a new phenomenon. Similar mosque projects have already existed for a long time in Britain and the United States.

In addition, the heterogeneous supporters of liberal Islam should have explained - well before the mosque opened - on what Islamic principles their liberal understanding of the religion is based. They should, for example, have held a pertinent debate on the role of Sharia in a secular constitutional state. This would certainly have been helpful in terms of drawing a distinction between acceptable and unacceptable aspects of Sharia.

In other words: Just as Turkey's state authority for religious affairs, Diyanet, cites the "tenets of the Islamic faith" as its reference point, the liberal Muslims should also have justified their efforts with reference to genuine Islamic sources.

State-controlled Islam has no credibility

Neither the meager response to the Muslim peace and anti-terrorism demonstration in Cologne nor the hostile reactions to the opening of the mosque in Berlin can be taken as evidence that Islam is incapable of reform. We are, after all, seeing efforts by Muslim activists all around the world who are striving for reform. The battle over who has the prerogative of interpreting and defining "Islam" is being fought almost everywhere, with a vengeance.

In any case, politicians would be well advised not to privilege particular versions of Islam - neither liberal nor conservative. An Islam protected or even controlled by the state would have no credibility, and would be unworthy of a pluralist democracy.

For the ongoing development of Islam in Germany it would therefore be better, in the spirit of our liberal-democratic constitution, to respect the real-life plurality of Muslims and their different understandings of what Islam is, and continue to promote its institutional naturalization.

Have something to say? You can leave a comment below. The thread will remain open for 24 hours after publication.

Link:

Opinion: Liberal Islam is a chimera - Deutsche Welle

Photo: Bob Owen /San Antonio Express-News

A birds-eye view on why Liberal Ron didnt fly

Two grackles, last seen perched on a wire over lower Broadway back in January, returned for an agonizing reassessment of the way things went.

Ron Nirenberg appeared to be flying against the wind and won. How is it, one of the birds mused in a voice dripping with sarcasm, that http://www.liberalron.com maneuver didnt work to derail this guy?

The other bird, his shiny wings slightly ruffled, let out a heavy sigh.

No, really! the first bird said, with a giggle, his tongue firmly in the side of his beak. Is it that San Antonio voters were just tired of that kind of campaigning? Liberal Ron wasnt anywhere near as pointed as Lying Ted and Crooked Hillary, but it was thrown out there in the same spirit.

Well, the second bird said as he claimed more comfortable footing on the nearby utility pole, political campaigns get ugly from time to time. And pointing out the liberal leanings of a liberal politician is about as hostile as someone calling us birds of a feather.

Oh, clearly were very different, the first bird said, still giggling. But Ill tell you why it didnt work. The campaign tactic fell flat because voters have had enough of name-calling. Theyre sick of the angry campaigns. Theyve had it, and theyre sending a message.

Maybe. Maybe that kind of campaigning doesnt strike the same chord in this city. Maybe the president ruined it for everybody, and now the rest of us cant amuse ourselves by crafting creative names for those who oppose us.

Or maybe, the first bird, smirking, said, it was because a male candidate could come up with nasty names and win but a female candidate cant?

He noticed that a group of smaller birds gathered on a nearby branch were now hanging on to every word. Taking this cue, he puffed his feathers and continued.

Maybe, he conceded. But the Liberal Ron thing wasnt an off-the-cuff remark the former mayor came up with on a lark. A web presence was established, for crying out loud! Someone came up with this idea, someone pushed it out of the nest a couple of times before it was ready, and someone gave the go ahead to let it fly and judging by the image she projected to the public during her time in office it probably wasnt all her.

A half-dozen more grackles and few doves gathered next to them. The first bird, empowered by the growing audience, turned up the volume.

Well, the term liberal shouldnt be a dig, the first bird said, It has become a dig. Its now a polarizing label. Its uttered with scorn. That label was meant to cast him in a certain light. It was bad play. It was a bad move.

Maybe. Then again it might make a good quip on the campaign trail, but labels arent just for soup cans, the second bird huffed as more tiny warblers landed on the wire, chirping asides and tweeting dissenting jabs at the grackles. They are indicators of how an elected official will lead. And isnt that vital in determining which way to vote at the mayoral level, even if the city manager does a great deal of the heavy lifting?

The first bird stopped giggling as a few of the smaller birds sitting next to him flitted closer to the utility pole. By now the lines above Broadway looked as if Tippi Hedren were about to drive past.

No matter, the second bird continued, The system labels and all works. And maybe the time seems to be right for someone who can rock the liberal label. Nirenberg didnt set up a site calling anybody anything, but he won the votes because he is representative of what the voters wanted. Thats the point.

Thirteen percent of them, anyway, said a small bird who was sitting nearby. And if you ask me and I know you arent thats probably a good thing. Too many are influenced by a clever one-liner, an argument that sounds as if its based on facts but isnt, or all manner of nasty campaign maneuvers. And believe me, the noisy, the birdbrained and the easily swayed do flock together.

Luckily, he was able to zip away before anybody figured out who chimed in.

mariaanglin@yahoo.com

Continued here:

A bird's-eye view on why 'Liberal Ron' didn't fly - mySanAntonio.com