Monthly Archives: February 2020

Two insurgent Democrats, very different times. Photo: Getty Images

Weve known for a long time that the GOP strategy for victory in 2020 is to rev up the Trump-loving MAGA base while convincing swing voters that Democrats are a bunch of baby-killing, job-killing hippies obsessed with political correctness and resentment toward virtuous middle-class folk (and the billionaires who employ them). While wallowing in a chronic extremism that Trump has mostly just exacerbated, Republicans cant legitimately reach out to the unconverted to expand their coalition, so they have to pretend the other side is even more dangerous and irresponsible. Until very recently, this task was pursued by the generalized claim that Democrats were moving to the left at a breakneck pace, letting socialists like Bernie Sanders call the shots.

Now, of course, it looks like Republicans may be able to leave out a step in this train of illogic if Bernie Sanders is in fact calling the shots as presidential nominee. So you can expect a barrage of propaganda from both the right and some panicked centrists treating a Sanders-led ticket as a once-in-a-generation calamity. And inevitably, comparisons will be drawn between Bernie and the last left-bent Democratic insurgent to win a presidential nomination, George McGovern in 1972.

McGovern is a useful devil-figure for Republicans and a cautionary tale for Democrats because, of course, he managed to lose 49 states to Richard Nixon, a president who, before his second term was halfway done, was forced to resign the presidency in disgrace. So before too much myth-making is incorporated into the conventional wisdom, its a good idea to revisit 1972 and see what lessons can and cannot be derived.

I weighed in on this topic last August, when I argued that much of the demonization of McGovern was misplaced. The New Deal coalition he was alleged to have destroyed with his extremism was already kaput. The party abandoned his candidacy more than he abandoned the party. A second Nixon term seemed acceptable to a lot of Democrats, in part because he systematically tailored his policies and his political operation to expand his coalition. And the habit of massive ticket-splitting meant that down-ballot Democrats could sacrifice McGovern without consequences for their own campaigns.

To the extent that McGovern was responsible for his own demise, it was less a matter of ideology than of inept campaign mechanics and tactics, exemplified by his disastrous process for selecting a running mate (an entirely non-vetted senator who turned out to have an undisclosed history of electroshock treatments and apparent alcohol abuse), leading to an even more disastrous decision to dump him and start over mid-campaign.

So what does this history have to do with Bernie Sanders? Derek Thompson asks this question, and finds some similarities as well as differences. The former include a major overlap in policy positions; an effective grassroots-fundraising operation (unheard of before 1972); a similar appeal to young voters (without publicly released exit polls its hard to tell, but McGovern may have actually won among first-time voters despite a calamitous performance overall); and even a nomination campaign that depended on steadily increasing strength among minority voters (McGoverns campaign chief in the final primary in California was none other than future assembly speaker and San Francisco mayor Willie Brown).

Thompson thinks the single biggest difference between then and now is that Nixon in 1972 was a lot more popular than Trump is now. And thats absolutely true: Even though Trumps job-approval rating is currently drifting up into the higher 40s in some measurements, theres no way he will approach the 62 percent Nixon had on Election Day in 1972.

But I would draw attention to other differences as well. Partisan polarization and a radical decline in ticket-splitting means that down-ballot Democrats will have little incentive to abandon their presidential candidate even if they think he cant beat Trump in their areas. And just as importantly, todays Democratic Party and its constituent elements are a lot closer to Bernie Sanders than they were to McGovern in 1972.

If you get too caught up in todays warring factions of the Democratic Party you can forget that it used to be far, far more diverse ideologically. McGovern was dealing with a party that still had hosts of open segregationists, Cold War militants, law-and-order enthusiasts, and culturally conservative Catholics. His Democratic Party was still divided over the Vietnam War. The famous claim that McGovern was the candidate of the three As acid, amnesty [for draft evaders] and abortion wasnt invented by Nixons dirty trick artists, but by fellow Democrats (including his future running mate, Thomas Eagleton).

And most notably, McGoverns abandonment by the Democratic Party was exemplified by the exceptional hostility of the labor movement. The AFL-CIO was neutral in the 1972 general election for the first and only time since it was formed. Thats not going to happen to Bernie Sanders in 2020. He has a 98 percent lifetime rating from the AFL-CIO on congressional votes, and attracted significant labor support in both 2016 and 2020 despite heavy pressure to support Clinton in the former year and nobody in the latter.

A changing Democratic Party reflects a changing country, too. In retrospect, the McGovern campaign reflected the first effort to put together a new coalition of upscale professionals along with minority voters to replace some of the white-working class voters Democrats were already beginning to lose. The demographics for that sort of effort are obviously much, much better now, in part because of an enormously more diverse population and in part because the ancient hold of the GOP on professionals has long been broken.

The residual question is whether Bernie Sanders will run a general election campaign anything like McGoverns. Keep in mind that the South Dakotans primary campaign (run by future senator and presidential candidate Gary Hart) was then and later adjudged as quite good. But its as though the same people lost their minds once the nomination was in hand. Its impossible to entirely separate cause from effect, but the abandonment of McGovern by Democrats was made easier by the perception that his campaign was bumbling and amateurish, and unsure about its own relationship to the party Establishment it had temporarily toppled.

Can the Sanders campaign fulfill its potential of uniting Democrats while expanding the partys coalition to include previously disengaged nonvoters and perhaps even a share of the alienated white working-class voters Trump won? Or will it be psychologically incapable of abandoning its quality as an insurgency and imagine it can win while spurning regular Democrats? To put it another way, does Team Bernie want to conquer the Democratic Party, purge its impure elements, and begin rebuilding the party for the long-term future? Or does it want to beat Trump in 2020, even if that means passing up the opportunity to settle intra-party scores and dance on the political graves of its former persecutors? These questions may need to be answered even before the convention in Milwaukee, because Sanders may need help from Democrats who fear his nomination to get over the top.

The Sanders campaign has an opportunity to make history in 2020, but that may require skill and tolerance as well as grassroots energy and audacity. Bernies revolution wont ultimately amount to a hill of beans if he wins the nomination and loses to Trump, even if its not his fault. So he and his fans would be well advised not to drink the Kool-Aid and believe in electability arguments that depend on the idea that theres a hidden majority of nonvoters out there who have been waiting for a democratic socialist option all these years. More likely, the electorate we already know about will decide 2020. But if Sanders does win, it will lay to rest once and for all the myth that Democratic progressives are doomed to McGoverns fate.

Daily news about the politics, business, and technology shaping our world.

Follow this link:

Why Bernie Is Not George McGovern and 2020 Isnt 1972 - New York Magazine

The Senates failure to remove President Trump from office for abuse of power constituted a giant step toward authoritarianism. Separation of powers and impeachmentfailed to check its advance. Unfortunately, the Constitutions establishment of the electoral college allowed an anti-democratic minority to gain power. Driving this trend isa demographic shift toward whites becoming the minority in about 20 years. "Birtherism," building a border wall, banning Muslim immigration, and legitimizing misogyny reveal the bigotry driving this community.

Decades of Republican efforts to prevent gun control, attack "political correctness," limit reproductive rights, suppress the minority vote, and gerrymander voting districts make it clear that individual freedom and expansion of human rights is not where President Trump and his supporters want the country to go. Voters who see themselves as a persecuted minority look to Trump to preserve their long held privileges by preserving white supremacy. The countrys only hope for ensuring democracys survival now lies in the outcome of the election of 2020.

David M. Collins

New London

See original here:

New London and southeastern Connecticut News, Sports, Business, Entertainment and Video - theday.com

Juneaus Wearable Art exhibition has seen better days at least more creative days, and more liberated days.

Just two years ago, more than 30 entrants typically took part in the pageant, which is a fundraiser for the operations of the Juneau Arts and Humanities Council.

[Read: The end of art in Juneau]

But then came the woke police.

In 2018, one creative entry from Haines caught the ire of progressives, who said it was cultural appropriation. The garment and model were withdrawn from the competition and publicly humiliated. JAHC then set forth stringent rules to ensure that no one ever commits the sin of cultural appropriation again.

Creativity, meet political correctness.

The result of JAHCs plunge into an era of artistic prohibition? Only 18 people even entered this, the 20th anniversary of the arts event. Thats a 40 percent drop in the usual number entries.

2018-2019 became the era of an ensuing Mao-like criticism-self-criticism exercise by the arts council, which now states its mission as not promoting the arts, but destroying racial inequality.

The JAHC recognizes that our society is challenged to overcome a complex web of inequities racism, sexism, homophobia, classism, and ableism among them. All of these forms of discrimination are powerful drivers of unequal individual and group outcomes. However, it is our belief that ALAANA [African, Latino, Asian, and Native American] individuals whose identities intersect with those of other minority social statuses often experience compounded mistreatment that is amplified by the interaction of race. We support the work being undertaken to dismantle the array of social and economic injustices; however, The JAHC has determined that we must focus our efforts to heighten our effectiveness. We move forward from our assessment that racism is one of the most pressing issues of our time, and that meaningful progress on advancing racial equity will have significant positive impact on challenging other discrimination-based injustices. Therefore, our current priority is working against racism by working toward racial equity in arts philanthropy.

So states part of the long political creed that prospective artists read before they take part in the wearable arts competition.

The JAHC Board of Directors and Staff have enacted an equity and inclusion policy to guide JAHC programming, events and actions. During the development of this policy there have been many courageous conversations about racial inequity, cultural appropriation and unintentional exclusion and stereotyping. And, we are confident and hopeful these rewarding and courageous conversations will continue. Please review the equity and inclusion policy on the next page, and keep it in mind as you design and create your project.

The theme for this years pageant was Joie de Vivre, joy of living. The artists, however, held back because in this era of political correctness, being subject to shame by your arts peers is a bit of a kill joy.

(Editors note: the wearable art shown at the top of this story is from the 2019 competition, the first-place winner Wishes & Prayers in Turbulent Times by Rhonda Jenkins Gardinier).

Like Loading...

Read more from the original source:

Juneau's wearable art pageant shrinks in age of political correctness - Must Read Alaska

Japanese animation has long had a reputation for pushing the boundaries of whats acceptable, but is it pushing too far these days?

Anime used to be conceived, produced, and consumed pretty much all within the confines of Japan. Sure, the occasional series would get licensed for overseas distribution, but with its story and characters so thoroughly rewritten, and its visuals so extensively re-cut, as to have little to no relation to the original version.

That started to change in the first major overseas anime boom of the 1990s, but even then, a series getting officially released outside of Japan was still the exception, not the rule. Nowadays, though, things have flipped entirely. Its now practically a given that any anime but the most obscure or prohibitively expensive-to-license ones will stream online internationally, and most of those will get overseas home video releases too.

But as access to anime gets easier and easier, its overseas audience is continually expanding beyond people who grew up with or have an interest in/affinity for the set of Japanese societal values reflected in the medium. Because of that, theres been increased debate as to whether or not anime needs to be more concerned with the idea of political correctness, and Japanese Twitter user @poepoeta01 recently weighed in with his opinion.

Many people are under the mistaken impression that Japans manga and anime have earned their popularity overseas simply because of the artists high level of technical skill.

Japans manga and anime are interesting because compared to other countries, theyre made under wild, limitless freedom of expression, without any restrictions.

Saying If anime isnt more conscious about being politically correct, it wont expand its overseas market it totally off the mark.

The majority of the direct reactions to @poepoeta01s tweet have been in support of his analysis and stance, with comments such as:

Totally right. I think this is why Chinese-made anime-style animation hasnt caught on internationally.Its like how late-night comedy shows are really funny, but then they lose their edge when the performers try to transition to more mainstream prime-timeprograms.I cant imagine another country where artists would be able to make a manga about Buddha and Jesus sharing an apartment.Japanese culture has traditionally been a closed-off one, where otaku-like communities come together to push an artistic field forward, and while that inner circle is amusing itself, the art becomes so polished that eventually outsiders notice and are impressed by the quality. People who like anime support each other, and people who dont like it dont watch it.

That last bit of reasoning, though, is something one could argue has new wrinkles to it in the current anime industry. With international distribution now easier than ever before, brand-new anime content is just a few clicks away for anyone with an Internet connection. Setting aside the question of whether or not anime has become more mainstream in overseas markets, access to it has definitely gotten much easier for non-Japanese media consumers, and an anime with content they find objectionable now risks leaving money on the table, money that could be used to help secure the long-term stability of a franchise and bankroll the continuing content production.

While not as numerous as the responses of agreement, @poepoeta01s assertation that anime shouldnt be concerned with political correctness also produced a few that disagreed.

Youre totally wrong. I have no idea what youre talking about.Looking at the staff credits for anime, I feel like you can say that it isnt made only by teams that are 100-percent Japanese anymore, and I think thats going to be the case more and more.

@poepoeta01, though, went on to offer a different idea of how the internationalization of anime could play out in a follow-up tweet, saying that he hopes Japan becomes a bastion of free expression that will welcome artists from overseas who feel like their creative efforts are being stifled by regulations in their home countries.

In a purely mathematical sense, all else equal it stands to reason that reducing the amount of potentially offensive content in an anime broadens its potential market. On the other hand, animes distinct style and atmosphere, which grew out of its by Japan, for Japan nature, has established a fanbase outside its original country of origin thats really only surpassed by Disney in the animation field. If the goal is to maximize animes popularity overseas, ostensibly theres a sweet spot between aligns so poorly with overseas societal expectations as to anger and alienate viewers and overlaps so much with the tone of overseas media that it cant stand out as unique.

The question of whether or not Japanese anime creators want to try to find that sweet spot, or if they fell trying to do so would put too much of a damper on enthusiasm from Japanese audiences, though, is something they still seem to be sorting out.

Source: Twitter/@poepoeta01 via Hachima KikoTop image: PakutasoInsert images: Pakutaso Want to hear about SoraNews24s latest articles as soon as theyre published? Follow us on Facebook and Twitter!

Like Loading...

See more here:

Does anime need to start being more politically correct for overseas audiences? Twitter debates - SoraNews24

By Alicia Clark

SaturdayFeb22,2020at2:01AM

For some, a shift over the decades was done with great trepidation. Who can blame them? Almost everywhere you look there is evidence of a culture in crisis: Democrats vs. Republicans, traditional values vs. progressive political correctness.

Add to that the very real concerns regarding America's national security and the geopolitical unrest taking place throughout the world. Many people (even people of faith) have forgotten that God's laws never change.

This nation was founded on a belief in God and biblical principles, which have been under attack for years. For all practical purposes, America allowed the Supreme Court to rewrite the Constitution when they removed prayer from school. The justices based their decision on the constitutionality of prayer in schools on a clause that to that point had only been seen as a way to keep the government from dictating how people of faith were to worship.

Obviously political changes can lead to changed perspectives. I wonder if the justices had any idea what a Pandora's Box their decision opened up. After that came free speech for Hustler and Playboy magazines. Somewhere on the timeline following that decision, free love stepped onto the scene.

Free love was not without consequences and once again the court found another obscure meaning to the Constitution ruling that abortion was a woman's health issue and therefore right.

Forty-seven years after Roe v Wade, almost 60 million innocent lives have suffered the consequences of a "woman's right to choose."

For those who believe man was created in the image of God, abortion became the signature attack on the image of God in the world. For those who don't hold that worldview, the procedure has been sanitized and is being marketed as a "woman's health issue."

American has turned her back on God. The evidence is written in her laws and "we the people" have allowed it to happen.

Alicia J. ClarkZeeland

The rest is here:

Letter: What is the true State of the Union? - HollandSentinel.com

CNNs Chris Cuomo tonight told Democrats they have to see what beat you and have a firm grasp on Trump voters frustrations if they want a chance at winning people over.

You need to see what beat you. Trump told people with legitimate gripes exactly what they wanted to hear.

He showed a montage of Trump supporters talking about liking the president because he speaks his mind and hes not politically correct. He added, Hear them, more importantly ignore them at your own peril again. Theyre not asking for a granular plan of how many years and how many dollars over how much time for health care, they just want to know that you get the system does them dirty.

Cuomo went on:

Make no mistake, there are hateful folks who see Trump as a champion of their bigoted ideas. But there are so many more who want you to address this. Government wastes the money. Passes laws that players can get around. Corrupt with their money and connections to power and this two tiered justice system. Policies that they have to pay for but dont benefit from. Politicians lie, connive, they pick winners and losers and with the media they push political correctness to the point of paralysis. Trump convinced many who feel like that and there are a lot that he hates the same things, that he is the systems perfect nemesis.

He argued Democrats need to show they can actually deliver and that Americans will win with you.

You can watch above, via CNN.

Have a tip we should know? [emailprotected]

Go here to see the original:

Chris Cuomo: Democrats Need to Speak to Trump Voters Real Concerns, Ignore Them at Your Own Peril Again - Mediaite

Mike Bloomberg speaking with supporters at a campaign rally in Phoenix, Ariz., February 1, 2020. (Gage Skidmore)

In a previous post, I highlighted a poll showing disparate reactions among racial groups to Mike Bloombergs stop-and-frisk policy in New York City. The Data for Progress poll surveyed voters in Texas, Virginia, Colorado, North Carolina, and California, and found that white voters were significantly more likely than black voters to take an unfavorable view of Bloomberg after being reminded of the stop-and-frisk policies he enacted as mayor of New York City.

The post was intended to highlight a broader political phenomenon vicarious aggrievement, I called it of white liberals taking offense on behalf of a minority group which is less offended, collectively, than the white liberals aggrieved on their behalf. The Data for Progress poll mirrored other data we have suggesting that white liberals, as a group, are more attuned and receptive to the mores of political correctness than are their non-white counterparts.

In any case, the post was not a defense of stop-and-frisk as such. Kyle Smith argues here that the policy was wrong-headed and heightened tensions between racial minorities and law enforcement. I am inclined to agree with his conclusion. Even as legal censure and policy changes have stunted the use of the tactic the number of people stopped and frisked fell from 686,000 to 12,000 between 2011 and 2016 crime has continued to fall in New York City. The constitutionality of the practice is dubious.

The merits of the policy notwithstanding, the Data for Progress poll is demonstrative of the white liberals tendency to champion the causes of people whom he purports to understand, even as the data suggest otherwise.

See the rest here:

About Stop-and-Frisk - National Review