Monthly Archives: March 2022

By Tom Baxter

Last week, as 2,189 candidates were qualifying to run for office this year, there was an ominous reminder that going forward, election results in Georgia may never be as cut and dried as they used to be.

By a majority of 73 percent, voters in Camden County rejected plans to build a commercial spaceport in which the county has already invested more than $10 million. The turnout was 17 percent, which is low but not out of line with a lot of local special elections. Local residents succeeded in getting a vote on the question after a petition drive in which they gathered some 3,500 signatures. The county commission is challenging their right to hold the referendum in a court suit.

Heres the ominous part: Instead of accepting the landslide vote as the end of the line for this long-debated project, the county commission filed an emergency motion to block certification of the results until its lawsuit is settled.

Its not such a surprise the county would do this. Both sides are heavily dug in on this issue, enough to exhaust every possible legal remedy. The Georgia Supreme Court quickly denied the motion, while allowing the lawsuit challenging the referendum to proceed.

Still, the refusal to accept even this clear a demonstration of the voters will makes you wonder whats going to happen in upcoming elections when the outcomes are much closer, and local election boards in many parts of the state arent as nonpartisan as they were before the 2020 election. There is a growing tendency not to accept the results of elections, even when the margin is 3-to-1.

This doesnt seem to have dissuaded people from running for office, however. Of the candidates who qualified last week, 996 are Republicans, 597 are Democrats, five are independents and four are Libertarians. The remaining 587 candidates are running in non-partisan races.

These totals might lead you to think that Republicans are either more numerous or more fractious than they really are. Every small rural county controlled by Republicans has roughly as many local offices as a large urban Democratic county, so there are a lot more Republicans in these local races, unchallenged by Democrats.

And while former President Donald Trumps beef with Gov. Brian Kemp has generated challenge races down to the level of insurance commissioner, overall Republicans dont seem more likely to do battle with each other in primaries than do Democrats. For instance, there are four candidates running for lieutenant governor as Republicans, and nine running as Democrats.

Its noteworthy that this is the highest office for which a Libertarian is also running. The presence of Libertarian candidates on the ballot caused runoffs for the U.S. Senate in 1992, 2008 and 2020, but that wont happen this year.

The races for state legislative seats probably give us the best indication of the balance between the parties and their relative fractiousness. Overall, 257 Republicans are running for the House or Senate, compared to 241 Democrats. In 42 races, Republicans dont have Democratic challengers; in 28 races, Democrats dont have Republican opposition. House District 28 in northeast Georgia has the most Republicans vying for office six, with one Democratic candidate. House District 90 in DeKalb County has the most Democrats five, with one Republican.

For all their partisan differences, the Democratic and Republican legislative candidates are very similar in many respects. The average age of the Republican candidates is 53. For Democrats, its 51.

The Democrats have 22 candidates who list themselves as attorneys or lawyers and 18 retirees; the Republicans have 21 retirees and 21 attorneys. Its hard to sort out candidates who are business people because they have different ways of identifying themselves. Republicans have the edge in this category, but not by as much as youd think. Interestingly, the five candidates who list themselves as entrepreneurs are all Democrats, while the two candidates who list themselves as CEOs are Republicans.

Four Republicans and three Democrats list themselves as retired military. The only chef candidate is a Democrat; the only chiropractor, a Republican. All in all, the candidates are a pretty wide reflection of what Georgians do for a living. Of course, the winning candidates may be a different story.

Thanks to Maggie Lee for her able data crunching.

View original post here:
When 3-to-1 is challenged, what about the close races? - SaportaReport

Why are Conservatives increasingly interested in cryptocurrencies?

It might seem like an odd fit at first blush. Conservatism, after all, is something of a backward-looking persuasion. It starts from a premise that traditional ideas and institutions should, as a general rule, be protected and sustained. Theyve come through a process of trial and error over the course of history and therefore deserve our deference and respect.

This call for epistemological humility can sometimes manifest itself in an aversion to novelty and even progress. Michael Oakeshott famously described it as:

to prefer the familiar to the unknown, to prefer the tried to the untried, fact to mystery, the actual to the possible, the limited to the unbounded, the near to the distant, the sufficient to the superabundant, the convenient to the perfect, present laughter to utopian bliss.

The point here is that the conservative instinct tells us that most new ideas are false or wrong precisely because they havent been subjected to the rigours of practical wisdom. Conservatism, in this sense, is the political expression of the famous line from Will and Ariel Durant: Out of every hundred new ideas ninety-nine or more will probably be inferior to the traditional response which they propose to replace.

That might seem like an odd philosophical basis from which to embrace something as far-out as digital money. Yet there are limits to mere abstractions about conservative ideas and the conservative persuasion. Samuel Huntington tells us that conservatism must be understood in a specific situational context. Its a contingent perspective that reflects particularistic circumstances. A Saudi Arabian conservative is different from a European conservative whos different from a North American conservative. What they seek to conserve necessarily reflects their unique culture and intellectual inheritances.

North American conservatism has long distinguished itself by its unique combination of a deference to tradition and a commitment to change. In his famous essay, Why I am not a conservative, Friedrich Hayek attributed this mix of posterity and progress to the fact that what North American conservatives are essentially seeking to conserve is a classical liberal tradition. That is to say, the North American conservative is, at some fundamental level, a liberal. His or her conservatism is dedicated to the preservation of the continents liberal ideas, institutions, and values.

Its worth emphasizing this point: North American conservatism is somewhat oxymoronically committed to preserving a cultural and political liberalism which itself is fertile soil for growth, dynamism, and innovation. Its a conservative tradition committed to a set of ideas, institutions, and values that are inherently pro-progress.

David Brooks spoke to this unique amalgam of ideas and intuitions in a 2018 podcast episode with Tyler Cowen. When asked about his own conservative worldview, he answered the following:

Well, Im anAmericanconservative. My two heroes are Edmund BurkeandEdmund Burkes core conservative ethosis epistemological modesty, the belief that the world is really complicated, and therefore the change should be constant but incremental My other hero is Alexander Hamilton His conservatism was very different. Its about dynamism, energy, transformational change. And so a European self-conservatism doesnt work here. You have to have that dynamic, recreated, self-transformational element.

This applies to Canada too. As Ben Woodfinden and I outline in a forthcoming essay on Sir John A. Macdonalds own conservatism, the countrys first prime minister personified this unique mix of backward- and forward-looking ideas. He was at once a dispositional conservative as represented in his personal preferences and tastes and something of a futurist with an ambitious vision of the frontier that was manifested in his nation-building agenda. As we write:

For his part, Macdonald saw entrepreneurial freedom, limited but energetic federal power, and national greatness as inextricably linked. These instincts for national development were actually quite Hamiltonian. Like the father of the American commercial revolution, Macdonald came to represent a business liberalism which was suffused with a Toryism concerned with a virtuous and ordered liberty.

I share this abridged story of the North American conservative tradition because its important to understand the compatibility of conservative ideas and technological progress in general and conservatism and cryptocurrencies in particular. The conservative persuasion in North America should be generally viewed as sympatico with frontier-like ideas, inventions, and technologies.

These conceptual points bring us back to the more practical question at hand: why are conservatives increasingly pro-crypto?

The first point is to establish that they are indeed showing growing interest in digital currencies. There are various examples, including, for instance, MP Michelle Rempel-Garners recently-tabled legislation that would have the government consult on a framework to encourage the growth of crypto assets in Canada.

Some have dismissed these developments as merely related to the recent trucker protests in Ottawa. But this critique fails to reckon with the broader movement of conservative intellectuals and politicians that has come to support bitcoin and other forms of crypto-currencies in recent years.

The highest-profile proponents arent themselves politicians. The two biggest are probably Elon Musk and Peter Thiel who are investors and entrepreneurs with significant influence on society and culture in general and the world of libertarianism in particular.

Theyve both come to be associated with the growing cultural and political movement around crypto-currencies through a combination of their personal investments, public commentaries, and large online followings. The former has frequently talked about how he owns crypto-currencies, including Dogecoin, which he has been instrumental in popularizing. The latter has described bitcoin as the one asset that I most strongly believe in.

The appeal of crypto-currencies to Musk and Thiel isnt merely about the financial upside. Theres also an ideological dimension. Digital moneys decentralized nature conjures up possibilities of new, more libertarian economic and political arrangements. Thiel has even argued that if we want to think about contemporary technologies in ideological terms, artificial intelligence can be thought of as communist and crypto-currencies are libertarian.

Its no surprise that in the face of sustained pandemic restrictions, libertarian ideas seem to be resonating more and more these days. In this context, Musk and Thiel have emerged as major figures among a cohort of millennial or Generation Z followers who are drawn to their contrarian rebuke of the stuffy conformity of modern life. Ross Douthat has thus described the rise of folk libertarianismor what others have called Barstool conservatismas one of the key socio-political developments of the pandemic age.

This movement is less steeped in the tomes of libertarian thought and instead more reflective of contemporary cultural and political trends, including the rise of cancel culture, identity politics, and perceptions of government bossiness. Its followers are more Dave Portnoy than Ludwig von Mises.

As a cultural and political movement, its highly active online, a bit coarse and politically incorrect, and mostly engaged in politics from the periphery using GIFs and memes rather than direct action. It reflects a series of intuitions about individual responsibility, personal expression, a commitment to technology and progress, and an aversion to so-called wokeism. Recently, The Hub contributor Ben Woodfinden summed up this worldview and its followers as crypto bros. Hes not wrong.

The key point here though is that there are cultural and intellectual factors behind North American conservativess growing interest in new and novel monetary innovations. Its broadly consistent with continental conservatisms interest in frontier ideas and technologies as well as the growing appetite for non-mainstream, decentralized models of economic and political organization in the face of perceived top-down conformity. But it also possibly holds out the potential to bring new and different votersparticularly members of Canadas sizeable non-voter constituencyinto the Conservative fold. Crypto has therefore become an ideological and political rallying cry for North American conservatives.

Its not to say that there are serious issues with crypto-currencies. The recent volatility raises legitimate questions about whether this is a sustainable market development or merely a hyper-online fad. One gets the sense that the true story is somewhere in the middle.

But as Matt Spoke recently argued in an essay for The Hub, there may be a case for a country like Canada to make a huge bet that the future of crypto is more sustainable than it is faddish. Theres reason to believe that the presumptive, next Conservative leader, Pierre Poilievre, broadly agrees with this perspective.

To the extent that he does, it shouldnt be viewed as inherently incompatible with the conservative tradition. North American conservatism has since its origins reflected an intellectual and political persuasion with both a backward- and forward-looking impulse. A careful yet curious view on crypto-currencies is well-rooted in this long-standing tradition.

View original post here:
Sean Speer: Why conservatives are so keen on cryptocurrencies - The Hub

ASHEVILLE - Upcoming primary electionsin Buncombe County will feature crowded and consequentialprimaries for Congress, district attorney, sheriff, City Council and Asheville City Schools Board of Education.

Trump ally Rep. Madison Cawthorn is facing an eight-way Republican May 17 primary.Democratic District Attorney Todd Williams hastwo challengers in a primary that will serve as the de facto general election because no Republicans are running.

The mayor's primary, meanwhile, has five candidates, including incumbent Esther Manheimer. Eleven council candidates are competing for three spots on the seven-member body. Both Asheville races are nonpartisan.

More: Details on mayoral and City Council candidates

The school boardis holding its first election since a historic move by the council and state legislators to switch from an appointed board.

Contested congressional and General Assembly maps caused the primaries to be pushed back into May. That means the chance to register to vote ends April 22.

Voting: NC Supreme Court strikes down redistricting maps, directs lawmakers to redraw

But voters who miss that deadline can still register if they vote the same day during one-stop early voting April 28 - May 14.

Election Services Director Corinne Duncan said it is important for votersto know how this election will be different withchanged dates and new school board elections.

But some aspects, even confusing ones, remain the same. Those include rules about how unaffiliated voters can choose whether to vote in Democratic or Republican primaries.

"It is always good to remind voters that people who are registered as unaffiliated are still able to cast a ballot as North Carolina holds semi-open primaries," Duncan said.

Now: Absentee ballots can be requested by registered voters for the 2022 statewide primaries.

April 22:Civilian voter registration deadline for the 2022 statewide primaries.

April 28:One-stop, in-person early voting period begins for the 2022 statewide primaries.

May 14:One-stop, in-person early voting period ends at 3 p.m. for the 2022 statewide primaries.

May 17:Election Day for the 2022 statewide primariesand civilian absentee ballot return deadline.

Details on statewide and local races are below:

Democrat

Libertarian

Republican

Democrat

Libertarian

Republican

Democrat

Republican

Democrat

Republican

Democrat

Republican

Democrat

Republican

Democrat

Republican

Democrat

Republican

Democrat

Republican

Democrat

Republican

Democrat

Republican

Democrat

Republican

Democrat

Republican

Democrat

Democrat

Democrat

Democrat

Democrat

Democrat

Democrat

Democrat

Republican

Democrat

Republican

Democrat

Republican

Democrat

Democrat

Libertarian

Republican

(Nonpartisan)

(Nonpartisan - three seats)

(Nonpartisan - four seats)

Joel Burgess has lived in WNC for more than 20 years, covering politics, government and other news. He's written award-winning stories on topics ranging from gerrymandering to police use of force. Got a tip? Contact Burgess atjburgess@citizentimes.com, 828-713-1095 or on Twitter@AVLreporter. Please help support this type of journalism with asubscriptionto the Citizen Times.

Excerpt from:
Voting in Asheville, Buncombe, WNC starts April 28; who's on the ballot? A complete list - Citizen Times

Back in February, we had a pretty good idea what was going on. Video and satellite imagery had shown the steady increase and massing of Russian troops, tanks, and military supplies around Ukraines borders. Vladimir Putin had started wars before and here he was again, on the precipice of something truly horrific.

What bothered me was the extent to which several high-profile populist conservatives were seeming to reflexively side with the cruel Russian autocrat. I watched as Tucker Carlson and J.D. Vance defended Putin, or adopted the Kremlins critique of Ukraine. The country was a pure client state of the United States State Department said Carlson. Spare me the performative affection for the Ukraine said Vance on Steve Bannons War Room podcast.

These interventions, made as Russia began an invasion that looks set to result in the deaths of thousands of Ukrainian civilians, look high risk and low reward. These commentators are undermining the credibility they have accrued for taking bold stances on the security and identity issues their base really cares about. Namely: wokeness, the border, crime and defending national heritage.

This is a real shame for populist conservatism in the United States. During the height of progressive moral panics such as the Covington Boys, George Floyd protests or Rittenhouse trial, Tuckers show was an oasis of sanity. It was, too, on exposing campus craziness and anti-white rhetoric in institutions, or the scale of illegal immigration. He defended the legitimacy of Americans who wanted to regulate the pace of ethno-cultural change and protect social cohesion, taking immense flak from the great and the good. Others, such as Glenn Greenwald, highlighted the blind spots and biases of progressive organisations and tech firms. Most American politicians and legacy media outlets failed to cover these issues objectively.

And yet, when it comes to a suite of other problems, the incisive logic of the sceptics and their marshalling of evidence yielded to sweeping neo-Marxist conspiracy theories about a manipulative power elite. This became evident during the pandemic, a tricky new challenge in which experts and politicians had to optimise between death rates and freedom. While governments and public health bodies may have got the balance wrong, and overreached with mask mandates, such a complex issue does not lend itself to maximalist claims.

Instead, the difficulties of policymaking during the pandemic demanded building a patient case with data and arguing for the dial to be turned a bit towards greater personal autonomy. Indeed, the politics of anti-lockdown libertarianism has not paid off for those, such as Nigel Farage, who have attempted to campaign on it. It was never a populist position.

Another tricky issue which is largely tangential to populist voters concerns is foreign policy, where, even with Putin issuing marching orders to unprepared conscripts, populist elites continued to carry water for this killer. Donald Trump, Marine Le Pen, Eric Zemmour, and Viktor Orbn all, at various moments, spoke warmly of him. While it is legitimate to make a realist case as John Mearsheimer has done for tempering Ukrainian demands and accommodating reasonable Russian security concerns, the inability of some to reject the moral equivalence of Ukraine and Russia was glaring.

What lies behind this bizarre empathy toward Putins thuggish regime?

First, there is an important disconnect between Right-wing populist elites and their audience. Populist elites compete with mainstream intellectual elites, yearning for an overarching meta-theory to rival progressive liberalism or libertarianism. Many also desire a modicum of politically-correct respectability and thus try to pretend they are motivated by a desire to speak for the downtrodden. This typically results in a neo-Marxist mlange focused on globalist power elites and their manipulation of the masses. All of which pushes populist intellectuals toward grand theories of global economic and political order that bear little relationship to what national populist voters and audiences actually care about.

Steve Bannon talks endlessly about the perils of free trade, Davos and the working class, despite the fact the data shows very clearly that cultural attitudes and views on immigration, not material deprivation, are what predict support for Trump. Likewise, Brexit elites such as Boris Johnson or Douglas Carswell, with their libertarian dreams of a sovereign free-trading Britain, are strangely disconnected from actual Brexit voters, who were like Trump voters mainly motivated by a desire for less immigration and slower cultural change. The more Brexit voters glimpse the real Johnson, who cares nothing for these things, the less connected they feel to him.

Populist elites have developed a fixation on global elites and institutions as self-interested scheming actors, and have become obsessed with mobilising opposition to the globalist juggernaut. Rather than viewing the problem as a western cultural-Left worldview which repudiates national tradition and elevates a cult of victimhood, we are treated to conspiratorial musings about the Great Reset and elites in Davos, Geneva or Brussels. My limited experience, having given talks at some of these institutions, is that the more international the organisation, the less woke it is. Yes, western high culture permeates global institutions, but these are nodes rather than the epicentre of the problem.

Once convinced of their neo-Marxist grand theory, some populist elites, fired by hostility to the rules-based liberal world order, feel compelled to develop an anti-western foreign policy. Enemy of my enemy is my friend logic carries them toward Putins Russia and quasi-illiberal democracies such as Hungary. An isolationism which originally sprang from the valid concern after protracted wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that American nationhood not be defined by missionary democracy promotion has mutated into support for autocracy.

The perception that Russia is a masculine, white, Christian country unafraid to stand up for its traditions forms part of its appeal to conservative populist thinkers. Putin aint woke, Steve Bannon said last month. Hes anti-woke. The Russian Presidents 2019 interview with the Financial Times, when he declared that liberalism has become obsolete clearly impressed many Western conservative populists. Against Drag Queen Story Hour and self-flagellation about the sins of the past could be set Putins macho, Christian, nationalist Russia. Clearly, some populist elites took the bait.

Yet any honest appraisal of Putins Russia would reveal that its religiosity is weak, immigration substantial, and the Eurasianism of Putin and Alexandr Dugin would readily trade cultural homogeneity for more territory. Moreover, as the Russianist Edwin Bacon observes: Eurasianists embracing Orthodoxy identify themselves as having far more in common with what they would call other traditional faiths notably Islam, and principally Shia Islam than with other Christian churches. Putins Russia is a ramshackle, corrupt, aggressive despotism. It is not really hot stuff as Donald Trump put it once. It is not a post-woke paradise.

Populist elites also appear to like Russia because it has spurned liberalism, failing to appreciate that wokeness, whose sacralisation of minorities is used to restrict liberty, is best resisted by liberal arguments. They confuse procedural liberalism, which has been vital for the Wests success, with Left-modernist values such as celebrating diversity and change, which developed much later and are not central to liberalism.

As a rational populist and liberal nationalist, I maintain that the values of the median voter should be reflected in policy, but that those tasked with carrying out such policies should be guided by science, analytic logic, and expertise. The problem with many Western elites is not their technical skills, but their post-national woke values, which spring from religious rather than rational wellsprings. While populist commentators correctly skewer the progressive pieties of the elite media and political class, the anti-globalist conspiracy theorising of many needs an urgent reality check. Populist pundits and politicians should resist the urge to stake out contrarian positions on every news item, tacking instead to the centre ground on side issues to avoid losing support for core issues.

Hopefully the Ukraine crisiscan serve as a wake-up call, drawingthemback towardthe cultural problemstheir baseactually caresabout.

Go here to see the original:
Populists are losing this war - UnHerd