Monthly Archives: July 2017

Malcolm Turnbulls speech reminded his Liberal colleagues that he has not stolen the party and his leadership is legitimately Liberal.

It is a sign of how serious the divisions have become in the Liberal Party that speaking the truth about Robert Menzies is now depicted as making a provocative attack on the Liberal right.

Yet that is the situation in which Malcolm Turnbull found himself after giving his Disraeli Prize speech in London. As Turnbull pointed out in that speech, Menzies intentionally avoided calling the new party conservative in case that gave rise to misconceptions. Rather, Turnbull cites Menzies statement that they:

took the name Liberal because we were determined to be a progressive party, willing to make experiments, in no sense reactionary but believing in the individual, his right and his enterprise, and rejecting the socialist panacea.

As the leading academic expert on Robert Menzies, Judith Brett, has pointed out, Menzies recognised when the party was founded in 1944 that there was a strong public sentiment in favour of building a progressive, new post-war society that was far better than the old.

In other words, it was a party that pledged to reject socialism, but wouldnt necessarily stand in the path of social progress.

In short, Turnbull is attempting to reclaim both Menzies and the Liberal Party he played a key role in founding, for a centrist rather than reactionary position. He is gently taking issue with Tony Abbott and those conservatives in the party who have focused on undermining, rather than working with him, regardless of the damage this might do to the partys electoral prospects.

I say gently because, as even the arch-conservative Eric Abetz acknowledges, Turnbull also cites Tony Abbotts earlier phrase that the sensible centre is the place to be. Nonetheless, Turnbull is reminding such conservatives that he has not stolen the party, and his leadership is legitimately Liberal.

There is a long tradition of attempting to appeal to the centre in Australian politics, not least in the hope that centrist politicians will be able to harvest votes from both major parties. Turnbull can legitimately argue that many of the small-l liberal positions he is associated with (despite his more recent concessions to the right) are in line with popular opinion. Same-sex marriage is an obvious case in point.

There was also a vibrant small-l liberal tradition on issues such as homosexuality in the party in the 1970s, prior to John Howards conservative ascendancy.

Nonetheless, there were some elephants in the room in London when Turnbull gave his speech.

It is open to debate what a modern Menzian position would be in regard to issues such as same-sex marriage or racial equality. After all, Menzies, like Labor prime ministers John Curtin and Ben Chifley before him, continued to support the White Australia Policy. Male homosexuality was illegal under state law for all of Menzies prime ministership.

Turnbull refers to Menzies forgotten people. However, the famous speech in which Menzies articulated that concept assumed (as Curtin and Chifley also did) that employees would continue to be predominantly male, and women would largely be in the home.

Turnbull clearly assumes that a modern sensible centre position would have kept pace with changing social attitudes. But at least on some issues, other Liberals will disagree.

The bigger elephant in the room is the issue of Menzies economic beliefs at the time the Liberal Party was founded, and what a modern day centrist position on economic policy would be. After all, contemporary Australian voters seem to be concerned about their economic futures, the power of big business, and cuts to social services.

Turnbull does briefly acknowledge in his speech that, by modern standards, Menzies:

was hardly an economic liberal. He believed in a highly regulated economy with high tariffs, a fixed exchange rate, centralised wage fixing and generally much more Government involvement in the economy than we would be comfortable with.

Indeed, Menzies was more of a Keynesian economically, not a market liberal like Turnbull.

Furthermore, Menzies characterised the middle class as the forgotten people partly because he believed that unskilled workers were not forgotten but were already well-protected by unions and had their wages and conditions safeguarded by popular law. Meanwhile, the rich were able to protect themselves.

While strongly supporting individual endeavour, he argued that the new politics should not return to the old and selfish notions of laissez-faire. Rather, our social and industrial laws will be increased. There will be more law, not less; more control, not less.

Menzies was strongly anti-communist and anti-socialist, but he was not a neoliberal.

Voters could be forgiven for thinking that at least some of Menzies words sound more like those of the contemporary Labor Party than the modern-day Liberal Party. The Liberal Party itself acknowledges that a belief in social equality was one of the principles on which the party was founded.

However, despite some concessions in this years budget, Turnbull may have his work cut out trying to convince centrist voters that his economic liberalism can adequately address todays scourge of rising inequality. Keynesian-influenced solutions are on the rise again in the wake of the global financial crisis.

Turnbull argued in his speech that the terms left and right had begun to lose all meaning. However, there is another, more unpalatable truth that he may need to face. It may be more that left and right are moving conceptually, because the centre has shifted too.

More here:

Turnbull is right to link the Liberals with the centre but is the centre where it used to be? - The Conversation AU

The most telling feature of Daniel Fosters response to my article on Donald Trumps Warsaw speech is that, while he dislikes my definition of the West, he never offers one of his own. I argued that, in the United States today, the best predictor of whether a country is considered Western is whether it is primarily white and primarily Christian. (With Protestant and Catholic countries considered more Western than Orthodox ones, and Israel tossed in to buttress the Judeo part of Judeo-Christian.) I noted that non-white or non-Christian countries arent generally considered Western even when they are further west geographically than Christian, white ones (Morocco v. Poland, Haiti v. France, Egypt v. Australia). And that non-white, non-Christian countries arent generally considered Western even when they are economically developed (Japan) or robustly democratic (India).

Foster responds that Morocco was jostled about by Spanish and French empires for a few hundred years and that Western ideals were kind of a big thing in the Haiti of Toussaint Louverture and that Japan enjoys the sponsorship of a demure American empire and that Indias in the frigging British Commonwealth. Sure. Countries that Americans today consider Western and countries that they consider non-Western have interacted for a long time, and shaped each other in profound ways. So have white and black Americans. Yet Americans still distinguish between the two.

Foster is trying to have it both ways. He says that India, Morocco, Japan, Haiti, Egypt, and many other non-white, non-Christian places are right well tangled up in the West. Notice the slippery language. Are they Western or not? Saying no would require Foster to explain what excludes them from the club. Saying yes would render the term meaningless. Yes, India is a member of the Commonwealth of Nations. (Its not called the British Commonwealth anymore.) So are frigging Nigeria and Papua New Guinea. If being influenced by (and influencing) the West makes you part of the West, then the West is everything.

Like other critics of my piece, Foster wants to associate the West with principles like democracy, freedom, tolerance, and equality. Thus, he says the Haitian revolution was fought for Western ideals. But if the real test of a countrys Westernness is its governments fidelity to liberal democratic ideals, then Japan, Botswana, and India are three of the most Western countries on Earth, Spain didnt become Western until it embraced democracy in 1975, and Hungarys slide towards authoritarianism means it is significantly less Western than it was a few years ago. Almost no one, including Foster, uses the term that way. And for good reason. If Western is synonymous with democratic or free, then you dont need the term at all.

What Foster is actually doing is linking these ideals to a particular religious (Judeo-Christian) identity. (Other conservativesPat Buchanan and Ann Coulter, for instanceexplicitly link them to a racial identity as well. And in America today, Muslim virtually functions as a racial category anyway. The Tsarnaev brothers, of Boston bombing fame, literally hailed from the Caucuses yet were not described as white.) Foster gives it away with this line: The West is the only civilization that blushes. Really? Chinese, Japanese, Indian, Arabian, and African civilizations have no traditions of self-criticism or shame? Its telling that Foster sees the Haitian revolution simply as a struggle for Western ideals. Of course, African, Asian, Middle Eastern, and American revolutionaries turned the ideals of their oppressors against them. But they also drew on non-Western, pre-colonial traditions. During the struggle against apartheid, Bishop Desmond Tutu popularized the term Ubuntu, a Bantu word meaning common humanity. In his 2005 book, The Argumentative Indian, Nobel Prize Winner Amartya Sen argues that Indian liberal democracy owes its robustness in part to the legacies of a Buddhist emperor of India, Ashoka, who, in the third century BCE laid down what are perhaps the oldest rules for conducting debates and disputations and to a Muslim Indian emperor, Akbar, who in the 16th century, when the Inquisition was in full swing, outlined principles of religious toleration.

Near the heart of the immigration debate in America and Europe today is the question of whether non-white, non-Christian immigrants will embrace values like tolerance, reason, and womens rights. Conservatives tend to be more pessimistic. Liberalsremembering that, in many countries, such principles were once considered alien to Catholics and Jewsare more optimistic. Thats fine.

The problem is when conservatives ask not whether immigrants will embrace democratic or liberal values, but rather Western values. In so doing, theyre conflating the universal and the particular. Theyre implying that being Muslim itself is incompatible with good citizenship. Foster himself may not believe that. But if he thinks its a marginal viewdivorced from mainstream conservatism in America todayhes nuts. According to a 2015 Public Religion Research Institute poll, three-quarters of Republicans say Islam is incompatible with American values.

Donald Trump is not a to-be-sure paragraph. On the subject of Islam and the West, he reflects what most American conservatives believe. And defending his speech without acknowledging its context, as Fosters magazine, National Review, did is willfully nave. When Trump talked in Poland about defending our civilization from threats from the south and east, he was not talking entirely, or even mostly, about defending liberal democracy. How could he have been? He fawns over authoritarian leaders. He attacks judges for their ethnicity and tweets images of himself physically attacking a man with CNNs logo superimposed on his face. No president in modern American history has cherished liberal democracy less.

Trump arrived in Poland as the man who, during the campaign, said, Islam hates us, and called for banning Muslim immigration. And he gave his speech about the survival of the West in a country whose government is itself undermining liberal democracy (without the gentlest chiding from Trump), and will not admit a single Muslim refugee.

In contemporary political discourse, defending liberal democracy and defending the West are very different things. In fact, from Trump to Marine Le Pen to the leaders of Poland and Hungary, many of the people most loudly defending the latter represent the greatest threat to the former. Its reminiscent of Gandhis famous line: Asked What do you think of western civilization? he answered, I think it would be a good idea.

Read more:

Defending Liberal Democracy is Not the Same as Defending 'the ... - The Atlantic

Sen. Joe ManchinJoe ManchinManchin defends voting record in interview with liberal The Young Turks Graham working on own healthcare plan Senate confirms Trump's 'regulatory czar' MORE (D-W.Va.) defended his record during an at times contentious interview with a progressive news outlet as he looks to shore up his left flank ahead of a tough Senate reelection bid.

Manchin sat down with The Young Turks' Cenk UygurTuesdaymorning on the site's subscription-only streaming service, where Manchin defended his voting record that's been ranked asthe most conservative for a Democrat in the Senate.

"We are a product of the West Virginia environment through some challenging times ...I 'm fiscally responsible and socially compassionate," Manchin said.

Progressives have chafed at Manchin's moderate voting recordfor a while, but have become emboldened ever since the election of President Trump. Many believe the only answer to Trump's agenda is total obstruction and have been frustrated by Manchin's willingness to vote for certain nominees and arecent arms deal with Saudi Arabia.

FiveThirtyEight has found that Manchinvotes with Trump's priorities58 percent of the time. But since Trump won his state by a 42-point margin in November, Manchin and his supporters have argued that he's trying to toe the line and represent his constituents.

That's caused progressive groups to protest his position on leadership and call for a primary challenge. Manchin faces a primary rival inPaula Jean Swearengin, the daughter of a coal miner and an outspoken Manchin critic who has accused himof not being a good steward ofthe state's environment.

The Young Turks has a strong following among the progressive left. Manchin faces a difficult path to reelection thanks to Trump's favorability in the state, and two strong Republican challengers have already jumped into the race to replace him.

The conversation also comes months after reports that Manchin sat down for an off-the-record session with conservative outlet Breitbart,a move that further frustrated progressives.

During the interview, Manchin defended himself from questions overhis environmental record, arguing that he thinks there is a "balance between the environment and the economy" and disputingclaims that every stream in the state is contaminated by noting that he regularly eats fish from astream.

And while Manchinwouldn't label himself a progressive, noting that it depends on his definition, he pitched himself as compassionate.

"On issues, progressive means are you are supportive of things that helps peoples' lives," he said.

"A Republican goes to the bottom line every time. When it comes down to weighing as a human being, they are going to go to the bottom line. A true Democrat will go to the bottom of your heart."

Manchin toedthe progressive line on the issue of campaign financing, arguing that money is "destroying politics as we know it." He backed the move to end political spending fromsuper PACs and dark-money groups while also calling fora move to cut down the time politicians spend on campaigning.

That push came as Uygur confronted him on his top campaign donors, which include energy companies and Mylan, the pharmaceuticals company run by his daughter that has been dogged by concerns overthe prices of its Epi-Pen.

Manchin claimed that while he knows that Mylan has been "very much involved," he's never seen a list of his top donors and doesn't get into specifics with his fundraising team.

"I have no idea who gives me money ... quid pro quo, that's never been me," Manchin said.

Uygur circled back to theprogressive criticism of Manchintoward the end of the interview, asking him why progressives should turn out for him even when he didn't back Vermont Independent Sen. Bernie SandersBernie SandersOPINION: Democrats, look to the other Clinton playbook to win again in 2018 Manchin defends voting record in interview with liberal The Young Turks Dems aim to take out longtime GOP incumbent in Texas MORE in his state's presidential primary, which Sanders won easily.

Manchin responded by arguing that his record as governor and in office will help him in 2018.

"When you talk about progressives, you're talking about the liberal wing who thinks I should be more liberal, if you will. I want to think Im responsible and compassionate," he said.

We might not always agree, but I owe everybody an explanation of how I vote and where Im coming from.

Read more:

Manchin defends voting record in interview with liberal The Young Turks - The Hill

LONDON (Reuters) - Britain is heading toward a new economic crisis which could raise popular support for anti-Brexit parties, the former business minister and likely next leader of the pro-EU Liberal Democrats said on Tuesday.

Vince Cable, currently the only candidate in a contest to lead the Liberal Democrats, said that historically low interest rates had left the British economy too reliant on cheap money and many people would be hit by rising rates.

Britain's two main parties - the governing Conservatives and main opposition Labour Party - have thrown their support behind the 2016 referendum vote to exit the European Union, promising to negotiate a good deal with Brussels. The Liberal Democrats have instead argued that Britain may yet change its mind.

"There is something here which is not sustainable and it is going to hit us very hard," Cable, who holds a doctorate in economics, told reporters at a lunch in parliament.

He said an economic shock would spread doubt about whether the Brexit vote, which Prime Minister Theresa May has taken to mean a withdrawal from all key EU structures including its single market and customs union, was a sensible decision.

"We are getting into an environment where economics comes back to center stage...People didn't vote to be poorer and when they find that that's the environment in which they are in, I think the whole political chemistry around this subject will radically change," he said.

Cable, who last week said he thought Brexit might never transpire because the main political parties are too divided over terms for quitting the EU, said his party would be in a strong position to break through when that happens.

"We are not going to advance by small incremental steps - that is not my objective, it is actually to make a breakthrough," he said.

"The electorate is very volatile, they have been offered two alternatives neither of which I think are convincing and plausible and I think if we get the messaging right..., we have an opportunity to break through the (political) middle."

Cable served as business minister from 2010 to 2015 when the Liberal Democrats were the junior partners in a coalition government led by then-Prime Minister David Cameron's Conservatives. Cameron resigned after a narrow majority rejected his "Remain" campaign in the referendum.

The Liberal Democrats' influence has since waned and they now hold just 12 out of 650 seats in parliament. Ahead of last month's election they campaigned to give Britons a second referendum on Brexit once the final deal has been agreed.

Cable - credited as predicting the 2008 banking crisis - said he did not think the economic impact of Brexit would be comparable to the global financial crisis as banks were stronger now.

"It's different, it's a more longstanding, agonizing problem," he said, highlighting low levels of productivity as the central underlying problem in the British economy.

"It's declining. We are weak relative to other countries ... The underpinnings are weak. All this boastful talk about 'Britain has a terribly strong economy' - I'm sorry it's just not true. There are some fundamental weaknesses."

Visit link:

Warning of economic crisis, top UK Liberal Democrat predicts anti-Brexit backlash - Reuters

The Left is impossible to keep up with.

Last week, after President Trump spoke in Poland, he reached out to the European nations he has been so attacked for alienating, and he sang an ode to Western civilization. This, a Washington Post opinion writer told us, was "white nationalist" "dog whistles."

A Vox.com writer Voxplained to her readers that Trump's speech was "an alt-right manifesto."

Extolling Western civilization, our elites tell us, now makes one part of the alt-right.

This is the way you argue if you want to increase the ranks of the alt-right. It's also the way Democrats and the left-leaning media have been fighting for almost a year: take something widely supported on the Right and lump it in with something rare and repulsive.

This "lumping" aims to toxify the whole Republican Party and every conservative idea. The effect, though, is often to make extremism more palatable to more people.

The clearest example of liberal lumping gone awry happened last year. Back in summer 2016, just after Trump took the GOP nomination, Democrats had a different strategy: drive a wedge between Trump and the Right.

"Look, we Democrats have always had plenty of differences with the Republican Party, and there's nothing wrong with that; it's precisely this contest of ideas that pushes our country forward," President Obama said at the Democratic National Convention. "But what we heard in Cleveland last week wasn't particularly Republican and it sure wasn't conservative."

This was an eminently sensible tactic, given how un-conservative Trump is and that at 37 percent of the countrythe largest groupin an early 2016 poll identified as "conservative."

But then something changed. Maybe Democrats saw Trump as dead in the water, the White House was in the bag, and so they wanted to go for the kill and take back the House and Senate. Maybe it was less tactical and more visceralObama always hated Republicans, and his base was probably irked by his game of footsie with "reasonable conservatives."

In October, a few weeks before the election, Obama switched from the wedge strategy to the lumping strategy. Obama said Trump was merely the logical nominee for the Republican Party.

"There's sort of a spectrum," Obama said in an Ohio speech, which labeled the GOP one big "swamp of crazy a whole kind of ecosystem." A few months after arguing that Trump was this drastic deviation from the norms of the GOP, Obama argued that Trump was simply moving into the house the GOP had built. "He didn't build the building himself," Obama said in his witty climax, "but he just slapped his name on it and took credit for it."

At the moment, Ohio Sen. Rob Portman had withdrawn his support for Trump. Obama decided that this moment of party vulnerability was the moment to lump Portman in with Trump, declaring Portman's stance invalid. They're together, Obama argued. Trump and Portman. Portman and Trump.

Portman's agenda in the Senate had been "crazy," Obama argued, "based on lies." And so riffing on Trump's birtherism, dalliance with the alt-right, lying, bragging of sexual assault, Obama said "don't act like this started with Donald Trump. And that's why we've got to win this election at every level."

If you know anything about Rob Portman, a painfully boring moderate Republican, this is absurd. But you can see the logic behind the tactics lumping Trump with Portman could bring down Portman. Thing is, the opposite happened. It picked Trump up. Look at the Huffington Post's poll tracker or Real Clear Politics' average. Trump had consistently trailed in Ohio since the GOP convention. In the days after Obama's Portman equals Trump speech, Trump pulled ahead, and stayed there for good.

Ohio voters knew Portman. They supported him. And maybe Obama's argumentTrump's just a more vulgar version of Portmansunk into the brains of moderate Republicans.

Surely some people thought: oh, when Hillary said "deplorable" she just meant "right of center." When she said "homophobic" she just meant "opposes gay marriage."

Now the Left is up to it again. They think they're cleverly tying Trump's defense of the West to the alt-right, thus defanging any conservative defense of the West. Instead they may be dumbing down the meaning of alt-right, or making it seem more innocuous.

Oh, "alt-right" and "White Nationalist," just means that you love and care about Western civilization? I thought it was something bad.

Liberal lumping half-worked last year. The result may have been President Trump. The lumping they're trying these days is far more pernicious, lumping something far worse than Trump (white nationalism) in with something more crucial than the GOP (the West).

All good people should hope that this time the Left fails completely.

Timothy P. Carney, the Washington Examiner's commentary editor, can be contacted at tcarney@washingtonexaminer.com. His column appears Tuesday nights on washingtonexaminer.com.

Read this article:

Liberal lumpers try to make the alt-right's tent bigger - Washington Examiner