Daily Archives: July 8, 2017

Toward the end of the 20th centurythe term liberal went from being a source of pride for mostDemocrats,whofondly recalledthe New Deal era and thepresidency of Franklin Roosevelt the most beloved president of the century to being a cause of embarrassment for many Democratic politicians, who were suddenly being beratedfor their liberalism.While the term liberal had been generally associated with FDR and his popular New Deal policies throughout the mid-20th century, it had come to mean something quite different as the century progressed.

This shift was partly due to the evolving social and moral values held by many Northern liberals and the subsequent cultural backlash that followed in much of the country. But liberal only turned into a snarl word after decades of right-wing rhetoric that painted Democratic politicians and liberal thinkers (i.e., college professors and journalists) as out-of-touch cultural elitists who knew nothing and cared little about real America.

Of course, the rights effort to turn liberal into a dirty word was aided by many of the so-called liberal politicians of the late 20th century, who, rather than pushing back against the rights rhetoric, hopelessly ran away from the label (just as one might expect of a spineless liberal elite).

And today, decades after becoming a pejorative that implies elitist snobbery, the term liberal is still used to great effect by the right. Indeed, Donald Trump seems to have perfected the liberal-bashing rhetoric that was introduced in the 1980s, and offensive portmanteaus like libtard have gained popularity in the Trump era. But its not only right-wingers who use liberal as a slur these days. In 2017, liberal is almost as much of an insult on the left as it is on the right a theme that was recently broached by writer Nikil Saval in anessayfor the the New York Times Magazine. Among leftists, Saval notes, the liberal is seen as a weak-minded, market-friendly centrist, wonky and technocratic and condescending to the working class pious about diversity but ready to abandon any belief at the slightest drop in poll numbers.

At first it may seem that conservatives and leftists are criticizing liberals for opposite reasons: Right-wingers think that liberals are far-left ideologues, while actual leftists think that liberals lack core beliefs and are practically conservative. But the two critiques arent completely divergent; as Saval explains:

When it comes to diagnosing liberalism, both left and right focus on this same set of debilitating traits: arrogance, hypocrisy, pusillanimity, the insulated superiority of what, in 1969, a New York mayoral candidate called the limousine liberal. In other words, the features they use to distinguish liberals arent policies so much as attitudes.

This isnt entirely fair to critics on the left, who tend to focus more on policy differences and believe that the Democratic Party is far too centrist and technocratic (or, as many leftists would put it, neoliberal). One of the greatest disputes, for example, has been over health care, where progressives advocate single-payer universal coverage while liberals offer a sheepish defense of the patchwork system enacted under Obamacare.

Still, Saval makes a valid point in that both leftists and right-wingers are highly critical of the condescending and superior tone that many liberals exude, and thus share some affinities in their critiques. This was evident during the 2016 election campaign, when leftists criticized liberals for what writer Emmet Rensin called the smug style in anessayfor Vox,which wonsome praise from conservatives.Since the election, leftists and conservatives have also seen eye to eye when it comes to denouncing liberals like Markos Moulitsas, the founder of liberal website Daily Kos, who gleefully cheeredwhen it was reported earlier this year that people in red states would be disproportionately hurt by Trumpcare.Be Happy for Coal Miners Losing Their Health Insurance, declared Moulitsas on his blog. Theyre Getting Exactly What They Voted For. In another instance, the liberal blogger earned bipartisan condemnation (so to speak) when hetweetedin response to the Trump administration denying North Carolina hurricane aid: Theres your reward for voting Republican, North Carolina.

Liberals like Moulitsas have almost become caricatures of the smug and unsympathetic liberal elite that right-wingers have long depicted; its as if liberals have gradually come to adopt the ridiculous qualities that Republicans have assigned to them over the years. Which brings us to an important point: Leftists havent suddenly jumped on the liberal-bashing bandwagon because its the hip thing to do in the age of Trump, but because many self-described liberals have become the obnoxious and out-of-touch liberal elite that conservatives have long claimed them to be, while simultaneously shifting toward the right on various economic issues. (To be fair, obviously the right doesnt see it this way.) Saval touches on this in his Times Magazine essay, observing that to call someone a liberal today is often to denounce him or her as having abandoned liberalism.

American liberalism was once associated with something far more robust, with immoderate presidents and spectacular waves of legislation, notes Saval. Todays liberals stand accused of forsaking the clarity and ambition of even that flawed legacy.

This is obviously where left- and right-wing critiques of liberalism part ways. Indeed, right-wingers tend to focus almost exclusively on cultural and social factors in their criticisms, for the very reason that their economic policies are even more favorable to the elite than the policies of the liberal elite they disparage, who at least pay lip service to addressing problems like inequality and inadequate health care.

Left-wingers, on the other hand, see the cultural elitism of liberals as themanifestationof a larger problem namely, the abandonment of class politics and radical thinking. To appreciate the difference between modern liberals and old-school liberals, one simply has to considerthe sharp contrast in tone. In hisfamousMadison Square Gardenspeech,for example, FDR boldly declared:

We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob. Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me and I welcome their hatred.

One would be hard-pressed to find any liberal today other than someone like Bernie Sanders, who isnteven considered a liberal in the contemporary sense gallantly welcoming the hatred of organized money (after all, most Democratic politicians depend on big donors from the financial sector to fund their campaigns).

In response to the left-wing calls for class politics, liberals have frequently argued that leftists have an unhealthy obsession with economic issues, and that they disregard social issues like LGBTQ rights or womens reproductive rights. Some liberals have even implied absurdly that left-wingers are closet cultural reactionaries. It was sometimes claimed during the 2016 primary campaign thatprogressives who favored Sanders didnt like Hillary Clinton because of her gender, rather than herpolitics. But this kind of deflection simply reinforces the leftist critique of liberals, who, as Saval puts it (in summarizing the lefts perspective), shroud an ambiguous, even reactionary agenda under a superficial commitment to social justice and moderate, incremental change.

At the end of the day, liberals and leftists agree on a lot more than they disagree, and thus one might look atthisinternalstrife as unhelpful and even destructive especially when Donald Trump is in the White House and Republicans control both houses of Congress. But left-wing critiques of liberalism have only grown more urgent and necessaryin the age ofTrump, as it is the failures of liberalism that led us here in the first place.

Visit link:

Why we need the left-wing critique of liberalism: Because liberals got us where we are today - Salon

By Marton Dunai | VECSES, Hungary

VECSES, Hungary Hundreds of Hungarian right-wing militants gathered in a Budapest suburb on Saturday to launch a new political movement they hope will run in next year's parliamentary elections on a ticket that includes open racism.

Hungary's main opposition party, Jobbik, has been moving away from its far-right roots and is staking out a more centrist position. This has created space for new hard-right initiatives.

Three groups held a rally in the suburb of Vecses labelled "unfurling the flag of the far right". Although attendance was limited its leaders have reached a national audience in the media and plan to take part in the 2018 elections.

The movement, to be called Force and Determination, looks to be more radical than any political organization targeting a serious political role since the fall of Communism, and uses openly racist language to oppose liberalism and immigration.

Balazs Laszlo, one of the movement's leaders, told the crowd of mostly black-clad muscular, tattooed men that Europe showed an ill-conceived tolerance in the face of peril from its existing minorities and the influx of millions more people.

"Tens of millions are added to the ranks of the Arabs, Africans and Gypsies who will show no tolerance once they realize the power that their demographic significance lends them," he said. "Our ethnic community must come first... there is no equality."

Zsolt Tyirityan, another leader of the movement, used the Nazi ideology of Lebensraum, or living space, to paint a stark picture of Europe's present.

"World history is made and lost on population, the fight for living space and the fight to hold on to living space," he said. "Anyone who says different is either delusional or lying. Any way you look at it, the strongest always wins."

He added: "I have race awareness. I am proud to be a white European... And I reserve the right to defend that."

Echoing Prime Minister Viktor Orban's frequently touted ideal of an illiberal state, he said:

"We declare war on liberalism. They are our main enemy and we will do everything to destroy their ideals in our public... These people lose their nationality, their race awareness and soon their sexual identity. Such people must be forced out of our living space."

After Tyirityan spoke, a supporter approached him to sign a new copy of Adolf Hitler's book Mein Kampf.

(Reporting by Marton Dunai; Editing by Stephen Powell)

HAMBURG President Vladimir Putin said on Saturday he thought his U.S. counterpart Donald Trump had been satisfied with his assertions that Russia had not meddled in the U.S. presidential election.

Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto on Saturday said that the U.S.-Mexico relationship cannot be defined by "murmurs," the day after U.S. President Donald Trump said Mexico would "absolutely" pay for his proposed southern border wall.

The rest is here:

Hungarian hard right launches new anti-liberal, racist movement - Reuters

A Liberal senator has publicly confirmed he is drafting a bill to legalise same-sex marriage, declaring the "time is now" for the historic reform.

Dean Smith has spoken for the first time about the private members' bill he intends to bring before the Liberal party room in the coming months, saying the issue has become an embarrassment for the nation.

"The bill is important because it will allow the Liberal Party to revisit the issue of marriage once and for all before the next election," Senator Smith toldThe Sunday Times in Perth."I don't doubt the complexity same-sex-marriage presents for some Liberals, but I am not asking people to change their mind on the issue.Instead, we should allow everyone the right to vote according to their own conscience."

As revealed by Fairfax Media last month, Senator Smith is working on the bill in collaboration with lower house NSW MP Trent Zimmerman. They want to bring on a free vote as early as August, when Federal Parliament resumes after the winter break.

"This is not an academic or theoretical issue," Senator Smith said."This goes to the heart of how some Australians could be free to live their lives according to their own choices."

"This is not about gays and lesbians. It is about respecting our humanity and it extends to the friends and families of gay and lesbian Australians. The electorate is the best gauge of authenticity and my sense is that people are embarrassed that Australia has not resolved this issue.

Get the latest news and updates emailed straight to your inbox.

"Many do support the matter being put before the parliament and finally resolved. The time is now."

Senator Smith, who is gay, says his bill will includeexemptions for religious and other celebrants who did not want to participate in same-sex marriages.

He acknowledges that the Coalition's official policy is still to hold a plebiscite, even though it has no chance of getting through a hostile Senate.

"The coalition's position is clear a plebiscite so people should not underestimate the challenge of securing a free vote on the issue," he said.

"But there is a sensible way forward. As dry as it seems, the Senate's report into the government's own draft marriage bill released as part of its plebiscite proposal plan is the blueprint for the bill and the most likely pathway for success."

Mr Turnbull isa supporter of same-sex marriage but last month sought to ruleout a parliamentary free vote ahead of the next election.

"We do not support a bill relating to gay marriage being brought on until there was a vote of the Australian people. We will not support a vote in the Parliament until there has been a plebiscite. We are not going to change our policy," he said.

However, Mr Turnbull's stance does not necessarily prevent movement, if enough Coalition MPs are prepared to cross the floor to force a debate. If the bill did come on it would need the support of only a handful of Coalition MPs to pass into law.

See the rest here:

"The time is now": Liberal senator confirms same-sex marriage push - The Sydney Morning Herald

Roughly two decades ago, a former CEO of a multinational consumer goods company walked into the Mumbai office of a business magazine, met up with the senior editors and popped the question: Could I get some help to meet a common man? The CEO who had recently retired was on his way to becoming a full-time writer. To many of us wet-behind-the-ears sub-editors and reporters accustomed to taking the local train from the boondocks to get to work, the request of this palpably pro-market head honcho seemed amusing and drenched in irony.

Even more, considering that we had just moved from South Mumbais commercial haven, Nariman Point, to what was then still a landscape dotted with smoking chimneys of textile mills. The siren of the sprawling factory across the road blared a few times a day to indicate a change of shift and a sea of humanity waxing and waning through the giant gates. The busy street had ample street food and beverages to choose from: vada pav, dosa, sev kurmura (puffed rice, if you insist), cutting chai.

It would be difficult not to bump into a common man even if you tried. The good CEO may have eventually met his desired choice of humanity, with some help from the magazine staff. We never doubted his liberal streak he was volubly pro-reforms, pro-competition and there was little to suggest that he did not believe in an individuals freedom of choice. Its just that he evidently hadnt met individuals of hues and shades. Liberal elite and the inevitable left liberal that favourite oxymoron of the right wing and its avid chroniclers are sobriquets liberally hurled to describe anyone not conforming with the ruling dispensation. If youre not right, youre liberal. It isnt that easy.

#NotInMyName protests in Mumbai (above) and at Jantar Mantar, Delhi, on June 28

Liberalism Lite At the #NotInMyName protest last week in New Delhi, plenty of those who turned up would have qualified as champagne socialists, or the liberal elite. Pro-market for many would perhaps mean first stop Khan Market, and pluralism a Sunday chat with driver, security guard, nanny and maid. Their idea of liberalism would include customary references to either their exquisite cultivated tastes (lattedrinking, sushi-eating, as Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean was portrayed) or intellect (and its product), or degrees (and their effect) or all of the three and periodic railing against fascists and bigots over Chardonnay.

Thats not unwelcome in climes when human beings are being targeted for their caste, colour, creed and choice of food and dress. To be sure, the limousine liberals are needed like never before to make their presence felt at protest rallies. Its just that its time to drive that limousine out of metropolitan towers or, better still, leave it with the driver and step out into the great unknown. Small-town India and the small-town mindset are well and truly misnomers in todays India, with Bharat benefiting from economic reform and pro-market policies.

Thats taken care of the mindset problem, as well. For long, the small town syndrome not just in India was a phrase used to describe a narrow and parochial way of thinking. As the twain of urban and rural meets, thanks to migration from and development in the hinterland, you are as likely to encounter the small town mentality in a big city.

The Indian urban liberal is in many ways akin to the bunch Trevor Floyd, a theatre artist and contributor to HuffPost, recently described as Americas coastal liberal elite. In an opinion piece titled Dont Tell Me About Small Towns, Floyd writes: The coastal liberal elite and small town conservatives often view each other in monolothic ways.

The liberals think everyone from a small town is closed minded, conservative, and unambitious; the town folk think liberals are people who live elsewhere, who dont understand small town life, and who care too much about Beyonc, memes and global warming. He goes on to say that leaves liberals who are from small, rural towns, and those that still live there forgotten and unheard both on the opinion pages of the New York Times and the headlines of conservative sites like Breitbart and InfoWars.

Replace Beyonce with, well, Beyonce, and theres a familiar ring to that urban-small town dichotomy. A commonality between Prime Minister Narendra Modi and President Donald Trump is that they won the trust of the small-town non-elite. Uttar Pradesh was won despite the pain of demonetisation because a chunk of voters from Ghaziabad to Ghazipur was told it was good for them. Trump, despite all his obvious warts that were magnified on prime time, had non-city slickers believing in him because he empathised with their struggles.

Can the apparently pro-choice, feminist, pro-gay, tree-hugging Delhi liberal empathise with a distant not just physically working class? Is the Muslim in Muzaffarnagar less progressive than the Muslim in South Delhi? Shouldnt Tahir from Salempur in northeast Delhi who ferried a few to Jantar Mantar in his Uber taxi also have been a participant in #NotInMy-Name? Is the Dalit in JNU as excluded as her counterpart in Shabbirpur village? Ever wondered how many farmers in small-town India may be pro-market, proreform? And, yes, its tough fighting the prejudice of the faction in your social set thats agnostic to climate change, but what would it take to find mind space for Indias cross-dressers and transsexuals?

These may not be tough questions to answer if the #NotInMyName roadshow travels beyond urban outposts of sporadic activism. The idea of liberty at the end of the day is a state of mind. If the small-town mentality can be rid of, so can the culture of elite liberalism. What liberalism in the Indian context needs is a wider base beyond the cities, and deeper interpretation beyond selective causes. A good starting point will be Mehsana in the coming week.

Visit link:

Why India needs its "liberal elite" to step out into the great wide open - Economic Times

As the afterglow of forming a new government in British Columbia begins to wear off, the provincial NDP still has a problem on its hands: who will be in the Speaker's chair the next time the legislature meets?

It's a dilemma, but not an insoluble one. All three parties have an interest right now infinding a solution short of an election; B.C. voters have made it clear in polls that they have no appetite for another election immediately. If an early election comes, the party deemed responsible may well suffer a penalty at the ballot box, much as we saw in the recent U.K. general election. The Liberals should do their part to avoid an immediate election by offering up one of their own for the job of Speaker.

Arguably, the Liberals have a greater need to appear co-operative now given the way the party lost power. Premier Christy Clark went against both precedent and her own previously stated intentions when she asked Lieutenant Governor Judith Guichon to dissolve the legislature. Had Clark's request been granted, the province would be gearing up for an unwelcome summer election right now.

The other two parties might try to exploit the resulting vulnerability. Suppose no NDP or Green MLA stands for Speaker, perhaps citing deference to the convention of Speaker impartiality in doing so. Should no Liberal volunteer to stand for the job either, the party risks appearing serially uncooperative and election-seeking, more interested in the pursuit of power for its own sake than in the good governance of the province.

Beyond such tactical considerations, the Liberals have more fundamental problems. Most notably, they are in an ideological no-man's land right now. Having campaigned on its centre-right platform, the party not so much pivoted as cartwheeled to an entirely different agenda in their recentthrone speech.

If there's one thing that can derail a party for a couple election cycles, it's throwing into question its fundamental identity. Not knowing what the party truly stands for, many voters will be unwilling to trust any promises it makes. Even some core supporters may decide to sit out an election or two if they come to feel sufficiently alienated.

NDP takes power in British Columbia1:42

Accordingly, the party could use some time to get its house back in order. The clearest way to turn the page would be to find a new leader.Questions about Clark's have been swirling since her party's defeat in the legislature. No definitive answers have yet emerged, though some party supporters have expressed frustrations with the way in which the post-electoral situation played out.

That leads us back to the Speaker question. So long as the party remains on a war footing, it will be effectively impossible to carry out a leadership or thorough policy review, let alone a new leadership campaign.

If some faction of the Liberal party concludes that such reviews are in order, it could buy time to carry them out by putting forward a nominee for Speaker. There are other ways to accomplish the same effect negotiating Liberal support for certain bills and motions on anad hocbasis for instance but none with the same simplicity, freedom and predictability for the Liberals in opposition.

Certainly, there is ample precedent for an opposition member serving as Speaker when the situation calls for it. Long-time Liberal MP Peter Milliken served as Speaker for two successive federal Conservative governments, from 2006 until his retirement in 2011. He received widespread acclaim for his role in steering the Commons through a number of difficult situations.

Some Liberals will resist the idea of giving an inch to the new Green-supported NDP government, preferring instead to oppose everything right up to the point of election. Such obstruction comes with costs, however.

First, the Liberals will lose the chance to appear conciliatory in the eyes of the electorate, potentially undermining the party's pledge in the throne speech and elsewhere to cooperate in light of the close election. Such opposition would require them to somewhat awkwardly vote against other ideas they just proposed in their throne speech as well, deepening their ideological quandary as a result.

Perhaps most importantly, so long as the situation remains uncertain in Victoria, the Liberals must remain disciplined and loyal to their leader. They will lose the chance to engage in either a frank discussion of policy or a leadership review.

Simply put, the Liberals face a choice: obstruct or reorganize. They cannot do both simultaneously.

If a Liberal did stand for Speaker, the party would gain a measure of leverage over the government with the ever-present threat of withdrawal. Solve the NDP's problem in the present, and gain the ability to create a new headache for them down the road one that could well trigger an election at a more convenient time for the Liberals, or force the NDP down the contentious and potentially costly road of Speaker partisanization.

Call it a win-win-win. Everyone stands to benefit in the short term from the stability provided by a Liberal Speaker including the Liberals themselves.

This column is part ofCBC'sOpinion section.For more information about this section, please read thiseditor'sblogandourFAQ.

Read this article:

The BC Liberals should offer up one of their own for the job of Speaker - CBC.ca