Monthly Archives: July 2021

As they search for a sense of purpose, there are some within the party who have begun to think about alliances with Labour, formal or otherwise, in an attempt to bolster the forces of centre-left unionism after years of seemingly endless retreat.

While the Liberal Democrats have suffered as the importance of the independence debate has increased in Scottish politics over the last two decades, the main beneficiaries have been the SNP and the Scottish Conservatives.

Sign up to our Opinion newsletter

Sign up to our Opinion newsletter

Independence supporters voting en masse for the SNP, while the unionist vote is split between three parties, means they dominate the first-past-the-post constituency vote in Scottish Parliament elections.

For many, the Scottish Conservatives, particularly under Ruth Davidson, have emerged as the main unionist champion and this saw them overtake Labour to become the second party in Scottish politics.

It is not ridiculous to suppose that this trend will continue with elections eventually turning into a binary choice between the Independence Party and the Union Party.

Labour is still strong enough to mount a decent attempt to stop this possible future from becoming reality, but they have a struggle on their hands. So wouldnt the Liberal Democrats be better off trying to help Labour or going the whole hog and throwing in their lot with Anas Sarwar?

Rennie has now expressed the rather optimistic hope that Scotland is moving beyond the nationalism years, adding that there is a responsibility on ourselves and Labour to really step up and make sure there is a dynamism behind that progressive, centre/centre-left place in Scottish politics that is pro-UK, outward-looking, international, compassionate. All that needs to have greater energy behind it in order to convince people that it is worth it, he added.

He recognised that the Conservatives and SNP are now feeding off each other, saying the Conservatives are the main recruiting sergeant for the SNP. Thats why the SNP put the Tories on their leaflets more than the SNP and vice versa.

But the Liberal Democrats do have a role in Scottish politics beyond critiquing the policies of other unionist parties, backing Labour or being the best-placed party to defeat the SNP.

And that is as champions of liberalism, a philosophy that Russias dictatorial president Vladimir Putin declared to be obsolete in 2019. A liberal tenet is the simple truth that we are all individuals, an idea which some particularly right-wing liberals wrongly interpret to mean there is no such thing as society, but which also forms the basis for important principles of equality and human rights.

In a Scotland in which two great tribes are forming, one unionist, the other nationalist, there is a danger that we begin to forget that whatever flag we regard as our own or political beliefs we espouse, the connections we share as individual people are far greater than all such divisions combined. Even if the Liberal Democratss fate is to forever be a minority party, they would do well to remain and be a constant reminder of our shared humanity.

A message from the Editor:

Thank you for reading this article. We're more reliant on your support than ever as the shift in consumer habits brought about by coronavirus impacts our advertisers.

Read more:

Why the Liberal Democrats still have an important part to play in Scottish politics Scotsman comment - The Scotsman

Breadcrumb Trail Links

Author of the article:

Publishing date:

Thank god for the Canadian Senate.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

The Senate held up the Trudeau governments obnoxious, anti-democratic Bill C-10 long enough that the legislation to regulate personal posts on the Internet failed to become law.

The bill was still on the order paper when Parliament rose for the summer. That means its still alive and debate on it in the upper chamber will quickly resume should Parliament resume in September.

However, if an election is called before the House and Senate return, Bill C-10 will die a well-deserved death.

What wont die, though, is the Liberals desire to limit Canadians freedom and crown themselves or their appointees the final arbiters of what is and is not acceptable to put on the Internet in Canada.

Bizarrely, the Liberals have convinced themselves that in order to save free expression they have to limit it. And they believe this mission is so urgent, completing the passage of C-10 and its sister bill, C-36, will almost surely be one of their first tasks when Parliament resumes (unless they fail to win re-election, of course).

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Back in the spring, when Canadians and pundits began complaining that C-10 was an outrageous and unwarranted assault on free speech, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau scoffed at such accusations. He labelled them fringe thinking.

Steven Guilbeault testified at the Commons Heritage committee that a very high proportion of Canadians are asking the government to step in. Clear majorities in English and French Canada wanted government to step in and prevent harmful speech, he insisted. (Never once did the minister define what kind of speech was harmful.)

A briefing paper prepared by his office in early June got a bit of closure to the answer. Legal but offensive social media comments were intimidating valuable voices and causing them not to engage in discussions of important issues.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

We apologize, but this video has failed to load.

The conclusion of Guilbeaults staffers: Harsh online comments are preventing a truly democratic debate. They are undermining Canadian democracy, so even if posts are legal, the government needs the power to remove offensive comments from the Internet.

Offensive to whom, though?

See what I mean? The Liberals have convinced themselves that in order to save democracy and free speech, they have to tightly regulate what Canadians get to say online.

Thats dangerous doublethink. And it proves the Liberals are intellectually unsuited for the task of protecting Charter rights.

Which do you think is a greater threat to democracy: repugnant statements online by individuals with no power to enforce their screeds or committees of bureaucrats and progressive politicians sitting in judgement over what can and cannot be posted?

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

As if C-10 were not enough to prove the Liberals understand nothing about free speech, consider that just before Parliament rose the Trudeau government introduced Bill C-36, an act that would reinstate the Canadian Human Rights Commissions (CHRC) power to conduct hate-speech witch hunts.

The commission had so abused its power before by going after individuals who challenged political correctness, that the Harper government stripped the CHRC of what were known as Section 13 powers.

Now the Liberals not only want to restore the commissions power, they want to beef it up with threats of up to $70,000 fines for any individual Canadian suspected of posting statements that promote detestation or vilification.

Posts could be instantly ordered removed and suspected offenders could be placed under house arrest, even if there is no evidence a criminal act has been committed.

And while the Liberals claim all this has broad public support, under questioning from Ontario Conservative MP Alex Ruff, Guilbeaults staff was forced to admit that of the hundreds of letters and emails they had received on C-10, not a single one supported the bill.

No support at all.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Sign up to receive daily headline news from the Toronto SUN, a division of Postmedia Network Inc.

A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder.

The next issue of The Toronto Sun Headline News will soon be in your inbox.

We encountered an issue signing you up. Please try again

Postmedia is committed to maintaining a lively but civil forum for discussion and encourage all readers to share their views on our articles. Comments may take up to an hour for moderation before appearing on the site. We ask you to keep your comments relevant and respectful. We have enabled email notificationsyou will now receive an email if you receive a reply to your comment, there is an update to a comment thread you follow or if a user you follow comments. Visit our Community Guidelines for more information and details on how to adjust your email settings.

See original here:

GUNTER: The dangerous doublethink of the Liberal government's online censorship - Toronto Sun

By Gail Collins and Bret Stephens

Saturday, July 17, 2021 | 2 a.m.

Stephens: Gail, your last column reminded me that we share a peculiar obsession with obscure presidents: Franklin Pierce, Benjamin Harrison, his grandfather William Henry. I was a little disappointed that you had nothing to say about Chester Arthur. Was he too obscure to make the obscure list?Collins: Bret, this is why I love conversing with you. Breakfast followed by Chester Arthur.Stephens: Our readers can barely contain their excitement.Collins: So heres Chesters story. Theres a Republican National Convention in 1880. Very bitter, 36-ballots. Roscoe Conkling, the New York party boss, wants to bring back Ulysses Grant for a third term but finally James Garfield gets the nod. To make peace, the Garfield folks offered the vice presidency to Levi Morton, an accomplished businessman.Stephens: Conkling sounds like a name that belongs in a dirty limerick.Collins: But stay with me, Im almost done Boss Conkling is still sulking over Grant and tells Morton to turn it down. Then the Garfield people still looking for a New Yorker turn to Arthur, who almost faints with joy.The Garfield-Arthur ticket is elected, Garfield is assassinated and Arthur, who everybody thought of as a party hack, turned out to be a better president than expected.Now tell me, whence comes the Chester Arthur interest? Was he a long-ago term paper topic?Stephens: My father turned me on to the joys of the historical footnote, literal and figurative. The biggest thing Arthur did as president was sign the Pendleton Act, which was the first step in professionalizing the Civil Service and eliminating the spoils system. Approximately 138 years later, Donald Trump tried partially to reverse the Pendleton Act through an executive order, which is only the 138th worst thing he did as president. But fortunately Joe Biden reversed Trumps reversal, so the Arthur legacy lives on.Speaking of legacies, I was also struck by your comparison of Biden with John Quincy Adams. Care to elaborate?Collins: Bret, Im sure many Americans are amazed by how much our current president resembles John Quincy Adams. One of the great post-pandemic barroom conversation topics, hehehehe.Stephens: Yeah, I was in an Uber the other day and my driver spent the whole ride ranting that James Monroe gets all the credit for the Monroe Doctrine, when it was really John Quincys doing. We got to my destination just as the driver was getting rolling on the Adams-Ons Treaty of 1819, because far too few Americans realize that J.Q. also got Florida for the U.S.Collins: And really, its time for Biden to start being compared to somebody.John Quincy beat the ever-irrepressible Andrew Jackson in a complicated race that Jackson claimed he really won. As president, J.Q.s big priority was, as I mentioned last week ta-da! infrastructure.At this point I hope the Biden-Adams stories diverge because John Quincy just didnt do all that well in the job, and he lost reelection to Jackson, whose supporters showed their, um, spunk by crashing a White House party, spilling punch all over the floor and ruining the furniture.Stephens: Maybe they thought they were making America great again?Collins: But then Adams proved there really are third acts in American history. He went back home and won a seat in Congress, where he devoted much of his time to fighting against slavery. Died on the job, in the Capitol.OK, your turn which president would you compare Biden to?Stephens: Id argue that a better comparison for Biden is George H.W. Bush. Both were two-term vice presidents who served transformational figures; both were quintessential establishment types and instinctive centrists; both believed in the power of personal diplomacy; both were amusingly gaffe-prone, and both came from the kinder, gentler school of politics.I remember how liberals used to love to hate Bush Sr. A lot of proto-Trumpians, like Pat Buchanan, hated him, too. But I bet most Americans would love to have a president who could rally global support to win a war in the Middle East and quickly bring the troops home, help reunite Germany and bring the Cold War to a peaceful end, sign the Americans with Disabilities Act, support immigration reform and free trade, and work across the aisle on taxes and deficits.Bush the Elder was probably our best one-term president. Unless you want to make the case for James K. Polk .Collins: Ive been witness to a lot of very intense political debates about James Polk. Amazingly, all involving people who were totally sober.Stephens: Did I mention this other Uber driver who had strong feelings about our 11th presidents diplomacy in establishing the 49th parallel as our northwestern border?Collins: Pro-Polk argument was that he made five or so campaign promises big things, like annexing Texas and kept them all. Anti-Polk was: He annexed Texas for slavery!Stephens: I was always anti-Polk. As a kid in Mexico we were taught to venerate the Nios Hroes, the Mexican cadets who fought to the death against the American invaders at the Battle of Chapultepec. At some point, my dad had me read Abraham Lincolns Spot Resolution, in which Lincoln, who was then serving a single term in Congress, called out Polk on the flimsy pretext he used to declare war on Mexico. Basically, the declaration was the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution of its day. America would have been better off if Henry Clay had defeated Polk in the extremely close election of 1844.Collins: Have to admit when it comes to Polk my first thought is the story that, at age 17 he suffered from a bladder stone attack and had to have it removed without anesthetic.Stephens: Ouch.Collins: And Im interested in your Bush theory. But first, can I put in a little plug for Warren Harding?Stephens: That he was an underrated golfer?Collins: Harding regularly ranks in the bottom 10 of best-and-worst presidents, mainly because of political corruption. And in our recent, more frolicsome period of historical studies, weve heard quite a bit about extracurricular sex.One of my favorite stories was that during the presidential campaign, Harding was having a then-popular front porch candidacy in which he just sat in front of his house and chatted with visitors. At some point a neighbor woman walked by one with whom Harding had some history and Mrs. Harding ran out waving a broom at her.Stephens: And then there was that White House closet that Harding, er, graced with his presence. Though, when it comes to frolicking in high places, nothing beats Nelson Rockefellers final moments, when the former vice president I need to put this delicately was on his way to one kind of heaven when he arrived unexpectedly in another. Sorry, back to Warren Collins: Lately, Hardings gotten a lot of fans whove pointed out that he was, for his time, a big champion of civil rights and oversaw the first world arms limitation treaty.Stephens: International disarmament turned out to be a big mistake, since, as Walter Lippmann put it in 1943, it was tragically successful in disarming the nations that believed in disarmament.But Harding supported an anti-lynching bill, decried the 1921 Tulsa Race Massacre and had generally a much better record on civil rights than Woodrow Wilson, his over-lauded predecessor who really should be ranked closer to the bottom of the ranking of presidents than near the top.Collins: Totally agree about W.W. Maybe we could start an anti-Woodrow fan club.Stephens: Speaking of presidents near the bottom, we havent mentioned Herbert Hoover or Richard Nixon. They were always treated badly by historians, but time has a way of changing judgments. Hoover had a much better record of public service outside of his presidency than during his four ill-starred years in office; he was one of the greatest humanitarians of the 20th century.Collins: The work he and his wife did in China, trying to help the victims in the Boxer Rebellion, was stupendous. Best pre-president ever, maybe.Stephens: Nixon started the Environmental Protection Agency and led the opening to China, though 50 years later its at least worth wondering whether the China policy was a mistake.Collins: OK, going on record as saying that was a good plan. Also Nixons outreach to Moscow. Also, ahem, wage and price controls. He was actually a pretty good president on some fronts not having to do with covering up illegal activities in his administration.Stephens: Bet your younger self would have been surprised that youd ever write those lines. Shame about that burglary.Collins: Its been so long now, most of the country has forgotten his awful red-baiting or that very weird Checkers speech. Which was, I guess, the most important American political reference to a cocker spaniel.Stephens: So heres the $6.40 question: In 20 or 30 years time, do you think historians might be any kinder to Trump than they are now?Collins: Nah. Worse, maybe. James Buchanan did fail to hold off the Civil War, but at least everybody thought he was a pleasant person.Stephens: Agreed. And in case it wasnt obvious, I made up the bits about the Uber drivers. Historical trivia is more fun when you can pretend that everyone likes it as we do.Gail Collins and Bret Stephens are columnists for The New York Times.

Read the original post:

A conversation between a liberal and a conservative: Our favorite presidents you've never heard of - Las Vegas Sun

The late great Charles Krauthammer once wrote, To understand the workings of American politics, you have to understand this fundamental law: Conservatives think liberals are stupid. Liberals think conservatives are evil.

I would like to update this axiom to 2021.

Conservatives think liberals are stupid. Liberals think conservatives are killers.

Over the last 18 months, the free thinkers who dared question nonsensical masking or lockdowns were labeled everything from selfish grandma killers to ignorant Neanderthals.

Keep in mind, these morally superior name-callers were the same liberals who cheered and celebrated when then-President Donald Trump contracted the coronavirus.

One of former President Barack Obamas ex-staffers, Zara Rahim, wrote in a since-deleted tweet, Its been against my moral identity to tweet this for the past four years but I hope he dies.

When Sen. Rand Paul was attacked by his Kentucky neighbor in 2017 and left with a punctured lung and six broken ribs, MSNBCs Kasie Hunt relished the headline and said on-air that it was one of my favorite stories.

Recently when a man was killed in a race car crash in Georgia, blue checkmark and failed radio talk show host Tom Leykis wrote, One less Trump supporter!

But sure, Republicans are the venom-filled villains.

In fact, Neanderthal nation is wreaking so much havoc on social media with their disinformation about COVID-19 that Big Brother Biden is getting involved.

White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki proudly informed reporters last week that the administration is flagging problematic posts for Facebook that spread disinformation.

Lets hope colluding with Big Tech in order to suppress opposing opinions doesnt interfere with President Bidens grueling ice cream schedule.

On Friday afternoon, a member of the Biden Fan Club asked the president what his message was for platforms like Facebook.

Joe replied, Theyre killing people. The only pandemic we have is among the unvaccinated, and theyre killing people.

Behind hair smelling and plagiarism, Biden is best known for his hyperbolic rhetoric.

Everything Joe Biden talks about, with the exception of Amtrak, is the worst thing since the Civil War.

This new liberal mantra sparked some hilarity on social media.

Journalist Glenn Greenwald reposted an old tweet from March 2020 in which Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., urged his followers, Stop wearing face masks. #coronavirus.

Greenwald asked the obvious follow-up question: I wonder how many people Eric Swalwell literally killed with this tweet?

The iconoclastic author also reposted an old story from the Daily Kos, an online progressive media hub. The article focused on Vice President Kamala Harris old comments regarding her vaccine hesitancy.

In September of 2020, Harris said on CNN, I would trust the word of public health experts and scientists, but not Donald Trump because theres very little that we can trust that comes out of Donald Trumps mouth.

Does Joe Biden want to condemn Kamala Harris for killing people?

MSNBC host Joy Reid once tweeted that, the fact that Pfizer was not part of Operation Warp Speed and took no Trump government funding makes me feel better about their vaccine. Just speaking for myself, I wouldnt go near anything that Trump or his politicized FDA had anything to do with.

Wow. There is so much disinformation and fear-mongering in that one tweet.

Dont be intimidated by condescending liberals with zero credibility.

Their ever-changing opinions are too inconsistent for debate so they have resorted to branding their political opponents as murderers and killers.

Americans have every right to voice their opinions, no matter how unpopular they may be.

No one should not be made to feel guilty for questioning mandatory vaccinations, lockdowns, mask-wearing or social media censorship.

Standing up against the intolerant majority does not make someone morally bankrupt or evil.

Disagreeing with Jen Psaki and defending freedom does not make you a killer.

It just makes you a conservative.

Listen to Grace Curleys radio show every weekday from noon to 3 p.m. on AM 680 WRKO.

Read the original here:

Curley: Condescending liberals have zero credibility - Boston Herald

Twitter is finding new ways to censor political opinion it is not fond of. After making biased censorship the norm on the platform, Twitter appears to have decided to censor tweets that expose liberal hypocrisy. The latest instance featured the controversy around the photograph of dead Reuters photojournalist Danish Siddiqui.

On the 16th of July, Twitter user Yosha (username @BlackDrug) shared the screenshot of a conversation on her account where she pointed out the hypocrisy of liberal intellectuals. She used the tweets of Stuti Mishra, journalist with The Independent, to point how liberals claimed that the photograph of Siddiquis corpse would hurt sentiments but do not think twice before using photographs of funeral pyres to score political points.

Yosha had used the following two screenshots in her tweet:

Initially, the screenshots were labelled sensitive media.

But on 18th July, Yosha was notified that her tweet violated Twitter rules against abuse and harassment. According to Twitter, Yosha engaged in targeted harassment. Consequently, her account has been locked for 12 hours.

But the Twitter censorship went beyond only Yoshas tweet. The platform is forcing people to remove tweets where they had quote-tweeted the above tweet by Yosha. On the 18th of July, this journalist had his account locked for the same.

As can be seen, the tweet did not contain any image and comprised only of four words. Twitter claimed that a tweet that did not contain any image violated rules against posting media depicting the moment of death of an individual. Perhaps, it was motivated by the images in Yoshas tweet but even makes little sense as the her tweet itself was said to violate abuse and harassment rules, not the rule related to dead body photographs.

The rules that this journalists account was claimed to violate is bizarre and exists from 2019. According to the rules, the platform may remove media that takes pleasure in the suffering of the deceased or laughs at or otherwise mocks the deceased.

But it is not clear how a tweet that does not contain any image would violate a rule specifically for tweets that contain images. This instance marks a great escalation in Twitter censorship. The platform has basically decided to censor tweets that expose liberal hypocrisy. Now, not only does the platform assist liberals gain a wider reach for their propaganda but they will silence others who expose their agenda. The censorship is as political as it gets.

Danish Siddiqui was killed by the Taliban during clashes with Afghanistan. Following his death, a photograph of his dead body began to circulate on social media. Journalists wanted people to not circulate the photograph because it was apparently disrespectful, after using photographs of funeral pyres for their politics. Twitter appears to have accommodated their interests by censoring those who exposed their hypocrisy.

It also further elucidates the fact that there are no rules anymore because they are applied selectively, based on the political preferences of the individual; which again marks a very dangerous turn of events.

Excerpt from:

Twitter censors tweets that exposed liberal hypocrisy over Danish Siddiquis photograph, calls it abuse and harassment - OpIndia

Text Size:A- A+

Thank you dear subscribers, we are overwhelmed with your response.

Your Turn is a unique section from ThePrint featuring points of view from its subscribers. If you are a subscriber, have a point of view, please send it to us. If not, do subscribe here:https://theprint.in/subscribe/

In July 2021, a cabinet reshuffle has given aroom for the most of the Indian statesin the central ministry. Will it, however, address the political and economic disparities that exist across Indian states?

The outcomes of the recent state assembly elections (Assam, Puducherry Tamil Nadu, Kerala, and West Bengal) have prompted us to reconsider Indias current state of imbalance. Out of the 30 states and union territories with legislative assemblies (excluding Jammu and Kashmir, which has yet to hold an election), 19 are governed by the BJP and its allies, and 11 are led by non-BJP parties.

Figure 1: State and Union Territories with Legislative Assemblies in 2021

Non-BJP parties are ruling in the southern states, with the exception of Karnataka, following the state assembly elections in Tamil Nadu. The BJP and its allies, on the other hand, govern the majority of northern states. In terms of state assembly, the geographical mapping does imply a North-South division.

When the proportion of Members of Parliament who belong to the party or alliance at center in the total number of Members of Parliament in a given state is calculated (Number of Member of Parliaments from given state belong to party or alliance at centerTotal Number of Member of Parliaments in given state), this division becomes even more apparent. During the UPA era, the southern states had a significant number of MPs who were members of the ruling party or coalition at the centre. Following the 2014 Loksabha election, this share number of Members of Parliament in total number of Members of Parliament in given state has decreased. When state assemblies and member-of-parliament shares are combined together, southern states lose out in Indias central politics and negotiating leverage. This illustrates the Union of Indias political imbalance.

Aside from the political imbalance, India is also experiencing a regional income imbalance. In 2018-19, Bihar and Uttar Pradeshs per capita net state domestic product was 29668 Rs and 44421 Rs, respectively, while Kerala and Tamil Nadus was 148078 Rs and 142941 Rs. Its approximately tripled in value.

Figure 2: Income and Political Division

(Data source: Reserve Bank of India: Handbook of statistics on Indian States, Election Commission of India)

The north-south divide is underlined by the spatial mapping of economic and political power. Political power is concentrated in the north, whereas income is concentrated in the south. The gap is becoming wider. This compels us to reconsider Economic Geography, a concept popularised by the World Development Report 2009. Density, distance, and division are the three fundamental elements of economic geography. This includes the human (human development elements including density, labour productivity), physical (elements related to market development, access), and political aspects of economic development. The population (density) is concentrated in northern India on the other hand south India has traditionally benefited from the efficiency of reaching the market due to its proximity to the coast and sea routes. Further south, states such as Kerala and Tamil Nadu have established good public transportation systems, reducing economic distances. The political divide between the North and the South, on the other hand, is widening. The imbalances in these three aspects can impose the challenges for policymakers.

Recent cabinet reshuffle has given a room for the most of the Indian states in the central ministry change. Uttar Pradesh got eight ministers, while Gujarat got six. Maharashtra (4), West Bengal (4), Bihar (3), Karnataka (3), Madhya Pradesh (2), Odisha (2), Assam (1), Himachal Pradesh (1), Uttarakhand (1), New Delhi (1), Rajasthan (1), Tamil Nadu (1), Jharkhand (1), Telengana (1), Tripura (1), Arunachal Pradesh (1), Arunachal Pradesh (1), and Manipur (1) all have representation in the Central Ministry. Will this, however, balance the current political and income regional disparity? This will be the most crucial question in Indian quasi federalism in the near future.

Vivek Sharadadevi Jadhav

Where are we, as a Nation, headed?

There never was, is or will be Utopia; we can only work towards one. I write this not singing paeans to the Chinese system nor for liberal democracy. I am just painting some scenes as we see it.

I am going back, briefly, to the evolution of Homo Sapiens to understand polity and society. From bands of nomads with and without pack leaders the human civilization has seen various forms of Governments Chieftains, Kings, Emperors, Fascists, Communists, Autocrats and finally democracy. Democracy can be safely termed as the most successful of the systems. Even with the localized conflicts and terrorism in the world today, post WWII era has been the least damaging of the systems. I am not going into details. You can read up on all this on the net, if interested.

Yet, liberal democracy holds different meanings for the various sections of the electorate. The economist sees in it free trade and globalization. A politician will see rule of law, free and fair elections, minority rights and such. The common man will see same-sex marriage, individual rights, wide choices etc. It is a complex system to say the least, especially in a divergent population, such as in India. Then there are always two sides to what a Nation does or does not do National and International.

In this circumstance how pervasive and successful can liberal democracies be?

According to Yuval Noah Harari, the real problem with democracy, good or bad, is that elections are all about what we feel and not about what we think. The politicians and the media by their utterances channelize our feelings. This reliance on feelings may be the undoing of liberal democracy in India and all over the world, which has even now degenerated into a puppet show controlled by emotional strings. The Governments, media and all other constitutional bodies are scared to tell the people to behave, lest the vote base is eroded. The results are all too evident in these Pandemic times!!!! Feelings are not a cosmic force and they surely do not reflect any free spirit. I wonder where democracy is without thoughts even though there is a danger lurking even there. Most of us, including a large section of the media, think they are thinking while in reality the thinking only results in rearranging prejudices. This is also evidenced in the opiniated writings of reporters, columnists and many experts.

China has found a mix of various systems to emerge strong economically and militarily. It follows a variation (single party in charge) of an autocratic system internally and liberal democracy internationally. In the medieval times in China and Mongolia regions, the invaders first laid claims to small portions of isolated villages before launching large scale offensives. In todays world the battlefield is actually the economic spectrum rather than geographical extent. The military posture such as posed by China, along the LAC and other parts of the world, is only a smoke screen. It is quietly biting into the economic pie of the world. China knows what it is doing. Its strength is that it can just go ahead and do what it wants. We may not know the exact internal situation in China. Yet, the only way China can now be contained is if its people are so unhappy that they revolt and the Chinese nation implodes. That may not be coming anytime soon as the political structure there reduces the possibility of any strong concerted uprising by Chinese citizens.

Democratic system definitely offers more freedom than Governments such as in China. The problem is that we as a Nation do not consider that increasing freedom also brings with it increased responsibilities. Looking for loop holes in the system for gains is not something that can be considered responsible. Neither is wearing a helmet only when confronted with the Traffic police. Citizens of democracies need to be more self disciplined than in any other system of governance.

Even in a democracy in many matters the Nation needs to speak in one voice. This cannot happen when every political outfit speaks at cross purposes with a parochial agenda on anything and everything. The media too needs to be consistent and true in its reporting. A Nation cannot be run by the judiciary, just because it is a democracy and anything and everything can be challenged in the courts.

Tailpiece: As Yuval Noah Harari says, Most of the problems we face today in liberal democracies are there because the people who work for a living are now outnumbered by those who vote for a living. In this sense, how is China different from a democracy except that in a democracy the ruling parties change periodically.

Col KL Viswanathan (Retd)

Also read: SubscriberWrites: After Covid disaster, new Modi Cabinet should primarily focus on rebuilding bridges

These pieces are being published as they have been received they have not been edited/fact-checked by ThePrint.

Subscribe to our channels on YouTube & Telegram

Why news media is in crisis & How you can fix it

India needs free, fair, non-hyphenated and questioning journalism even more as it faces multiple crises.

But the news media is in a crisis of its own. There have been brutal layoffs and pay-cuts. The best of journalism is shrinking, yielding to crude prime-time spectacle.

ThePrint has the finest young reporters, columnists and editors working for it. Sustaining journalism of this quality needs smart and thinking people like you to pay for it. Whether you live in India or overseas, you can do it here.

Support Our Journalism

Original post:

SubscriberWrites: Shortcomings of liberal democracy, and a look at the political imbalance in Cabinet reshuffle - ThePrint

Arlington, Va., July 14, 2021 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- In July 2021, Atlas Network will celebrate its fortieth anniversary with the release of CEO Brad LipsLiberalism and the Free Society in 2021. The new book contends that, in the wake of an extraordinary health crisis, the world now confronts an extraordinary freedom crisis.

Lips explains, My big hypothesis is that a great deal of history will unfold in the 2020s, and the groups that make up the freedom movement are undervalued assets for revitalizing liberal democracy and ensuring a brighter future. The book takes a sober look at how the values of free societies are now being tested by lockdowns, cronyism, cancel culture, and more; and it finds hope in the capacities of a growing community of civil society organizations that aim for social change and policy reform in the direction of freedom.

For four decades, Atlas Network has played a leading role in growing a freedom movement of principled, non-partisan organizations. The independent partners of Atlas Network counter the arguments of left-wing socialists and right-wing populists, working instead to create a consensus around classical liberal ideas of individual liberty and limited government.

Liberalism and the Free Society in 2021 features findings from a new empirical study, the Global Index of Economic Mentality, which measures the extent to which the populations of different countries value private initiative, free competition, and personal responsibility overgreater government intervention in the economy. The book also includes fascinating transcripts of wide-ranging interviews Lips held with thought-leaders in Africa, Asia, Europe, Latin America, the Middle East, and North America. It is further enhanced by a photojournalism chapter, highlighting the concrete results in peoples lives that derive from policy reforms in the direction of economic freedom.

In the final chapter, Lips presents A Path Forward, explaining how a broader consensus can be built around classical liberal principles by emphasizing inclusivity and equal justice.

Liberalism and the Free Society in 2021is available at Barnes & Noble, Amazon (print and e-book), and Target.

Read more here:

New book 'Liberalism and the Free Society in 2021' examines - GlobeNewswire