Category Archives: Political Correctness

The school board race in Waukesha is a microcosm of school board races around Wisconsin and the nation. In Waukesha, many voters took their frustration out on existing school board members in the 2021 school board elections, choosing a more conservative board.

On Tuesday, the Waukesha school board primary showed just how much momentum conservatives have going into the new year. Waukesha conservatives came out ahead of more progressive candidates in the Feb. 15 primary but only by a narrow margin. Nationally, right-wing organizations, including the Republican party, are targeting grassroots races all the way down to school board and city council elections, pouring in money and resources. In Waukesha, they have had some success, but it wont be clear how much until the April 5 general election.

Last year, the deciding issues in Waukesha and many other school board elections was whether schools should remain virtual or in hybrid, or whether students should go back in person and even be allowed to remove face masks. Now citizens are voting against boards that they feel paid too little attention to learning loss and emotional stress in their children. Voters want to know what their school boards are going to do to correct the situation even as schools begin to go back to normal.

A new controversy developed in Waukesha which had little to do with the pandemic highlighted divisions. Diversity, minority rights and especially LGBTQ issues came to the forefront led by a progressive grassroots organization Alliance for Education in Waukesha. In August, the school administration ordered signs posted for Black Lives Matter and counter-signs supporting police with the symbol of a thin blue line removed from hallways and classrooms. The ban also included safe zone signs for LGBTQ students. The administration also disbanded diversity training for staff members. By simply removing the signage, the administration hoped it could make the conflicts go away.

The three incumbent board members up for reelection questioned the administrations actions. School board member Greg Deets asked for an accounting and contended those actions were ill-advised and counterproductive.

Deets and other board members supporting his position consider themselves common sense moderates. However, they inherited the progressive label because they were supported by self-identified progressive organizations.

A political action committee (PAC) supporting the incumbents in the February 15 primary was Waukesha United 4 Kids.They began an introductory posting with the words, Dear progressive friends of Waukesha public schools and featured, as part of their logo, a multicolored rainbow in solidarity with the LGBTQ community.

Conservatives countered with an attack on critical race theory making it part of the mix in the minds of voters in the 2022 primary election. But in general, voters wanted to know what school board members were going to do to get their children back on track. Conservatives made that their featured issue.

The conservative candidates called themselves the common sense candidates claiming critical race theory and other diversity issues are distractions from academic success.

The move away from fundamental educational principles to emotionally charged diversity, inclusion, and equitable training and teaching is decreasing student achievement states conservative candidate Karrie Koziowski on her campaign website.Waukesha conservatives are operating from a national playbook linking decreased academic performance to the preoccupation of liberal school boards with political correctness. And that scenario has gained support even in ultraliberal communities like San Francisco where several school board members were recalled because voters believed these elected officials were spending too much time on political correctness and too little on academic performance.

Speakers at Waukesha school board meetings and in conservative candidate literature highlighted the percentage of students who were below math and reading proficiency and an increasing number of high school students failing one or more classes this past year.

In fact, the Waukesha school system is rated one of the top academic school districts in the state and the latest district report card rates the district as Exceeds Expectations. The more moderate progressive candidates stated that the pandemic had a negative impact on education that cut across all school districts despite the heroic dedication of school officials and staff. But for parents with struggling children, having a school district highly rated by the state is small consolation.

Progressives say what is distracting from academic success are the actions of the administration: taking down signs supporting minority and LGBTQ students and even suspending a teacher who refused to comply.

While conservatives spoke before the school board on the loss of academic achievement, they were far outnumbered by those who spoke against sign removal for minority and LGBTQ students. For these supporters, the issues go far beyond political correctness. Even conservative members of the Waukesha school board concede that there has been an increase in bullying, placing student health, safety and academic achievement at risk. The removal of signs supporting the targeted students has been seen by other students as a green light to marginalize and belittle them.

Conservatives won primary victories, but the more progressive candidates were only a few percentage points behind. Carl Lock of Waukesha United 4 Kids and Laura Pisoneault of Alliance for Education in Waukesha both stated in emails that they were satisfied with the close finish of the more progressive candidates.

They believe that conservative voters are far more likely to vote in primaries than moderates and progressives who often show up only for the general elections. Lock believes that conservatives won in 2021 because of low voter turnout. Moderates and progressives will not make that same mistake again, he says.

Lock also contends that the conservative narrow victory could be related to Republican operatives pouring money and expertise into the races. He saw a whole lot of flyers supporting conservative candidates, but not much coming from the other side.

Conservatives narrowed their preferred candidates to just three, equal to the number of seats opened in this election: Karrie Koziowski, Mark Borowski, and Marquell Mooerer. A fourth candidate, Jaymz Touchstone, who was also perceived as being more conservative but was not supported by Republicans. The three top candidates ran a coordinated campaign.

The progressives were far less organized and operated with fewer resources. Progressives did not even support all of the same candidates. Waukesha United 4 Kids PAC supported all incumbents: Greg Deets, William Baumgart, and Amanda Median Roddy. But the Democratic party could not endorse Roddy, a moderate Republican. Instead, they supported newcomer Sarah Harrison. Nor does it appear that either Waukesha United or Democrats put money and expertise into the primary.

Pisoneault laments that the Republicans have made school board races part of their political agenda. Progressives who have viewed such races nonpartisan may be pushed to take a more partisan political stance.

Roddy got squeezed out because her status as a moderate Republican meant she had trouble gaining support from either side. Making the cut was Harrison who was seen as the most liberal candidate and made that known in the one public forum.

The January 28 forum was hosted by the Waukesha Forum Planning Committee and was moderated by Alan Borsuk, longtime Milwaukee journalist who wrote all the questions himself. But the three conservatives refused to participate, claiming that the forum was put together by progressives, despite Borsuks efforts to remain neutral. Only non-endorsed conservative Touchstone agreed to participate.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX

SUBSCRIBE

The Republican endorsed candidates probably solidified their support with the conservative base but may have done little to gain support from the more moderate voters in the April 5 general election.

All four progressives ran independent campaigns. Had they agreed to trim the slate to just three candidates, the results show that Deets would probably come in second or third fighting it out with Borowoski. That would still leave conservative Koziowski, who was the most outspoken conservative, in first place.

After the April election, even if progressives prevail and win all three contested seats, they would still be in the minority. Only an overwhelming victory might change some minds of some board members. The more likely scenario is a slim win or a loss of one or even all three contested seats.

So far, progressives have dutifully attended school board meetings for nearly six months making their case that the ban on signs for Black Lives Matter and safe zones for LGBTQ students be lifted. The board has listened, even commended them for having the courage to speak up, but the board has done nothing.

The Alliance has shown no inclination to take aggressive civil disobedient actions beyond teachers refusing to take down signs from the classrooms on their own which resulted in one teacher being suspended.

A complaint has been filed with the Department of Education, Civil Rights Division. That will likely take months with no certain outcome.

School board member Greg Deets has warned that teachers may flee the district and prospective new teachers might shun Waukesha creating a major teacher shortage.

While progressives have no chance of winning a majority on the school board even if they hold on to all three seats, they could lose more seats in April.

The Waukesha school board February 15 primary election results:

Karrie A. Koziowski 17% 5,408

Mark Borowski 16% 5,102

Marquell Moorer 16% 4,912

Greg Deets (inc) 13% 4,204

William A. Baumgart (inc) 12% 3,852

Sarah Harrison 12% 3,612

Defeated in primary:

Amanda Medina Roddy (inc) 11% 3,470

Jaymz Touchstone 2% 701

Read the rest here:

What the Waukesha school board primary tells us - Wisconsin Examiner

Facebook Reddit Email Telegram

Renowned Polish fantasy author Andrzej Pilipiuk was removed from a list of guests invited to participate in the Avangarda Association fantasy convention for the crime of holding conservative values, it has emerged.

He was initially invited by the association itself to speak at the virtual event, but the management canceled his invite and de-platformed the writer because members and the management of the Avangarda Association did not appreciate the presence of writers with right-wing views, a reason confirmed by the organizations board members.

The organization released a statement about the exclusion of right-wing authors, claiming that the writers had been invited by mistake for which improper communication among the convention organizers team was responsible.

Pilipiuk responded to the situation on social media, slamming the organization for its decision.

The terror of political correctness has made it so that more and more fields of science, art and pop culture in the West are becoming gears in the neo-Marxist social engineering machine, he declared.

Rafa Ziemkiewicz, author:

This is a lurking invasion of Bolsheviks who are constantly reemerging. This is like a plague. This is the same plague, but the germs are coming in new variants.

The author warned that academics and creators who did not comply by holding so-called socially acceptable opinions were being punished using methods reminiscent of totalitarian regimes.

Author and publicist Rafa Ziemkiewicz also commented on the affair on his video blog. He compared it to the recent situation with J.K. Rowling, who was absent from the 20th anniversary of her Harry Potter film series due to her feminist opinions and her refusal to kowtow to the LGBT community.

This is a lurking invasion of Bolsheviks who are constantly reemerging. This is like a plague. This is the same plague, but the germs are coming in new variants, Ziemkiewicz said, adding that this phenomenon had to be stopped as soon as possible because it would only be more difficult as time passed.

Andrzej Pilipiuk is considered to be one of the most popular and prominent writers of Polish fantasy. His most famous works include the book series about the adventures of Jakub Wdrowicz. He was awarded one of Polands most prestigious awards for fantasy authors for his work in 2022.

Facebook Reddit Email Telegram

Get your daily dose of Remix Newsstraight to your mailbox!

You have successfully joined our subscriber list.

See the original post:

Polish author canceled from fantasy convention organizers for having 'right-wing views' - Remix News

In the Discourses on Livy, Machiavelli asks whether the nobles these days we speak of the elites or the people are better guardians of freedom. Acknowledging that there is something to say on every side, the cunning student of cunning sees threats to freedom emanating from both camps. Critics of the nationalist turn within American conservatism and the national conservatives themselves would do well to keep in mind Machiavellis supple assessment.

Whereas the nobles, the Florentine observes, are marked by a great desire to dominate, the people only desire not to be dominated. The nobles can satisfy their lofty political ambitions by excelling as protectors of freedom, but they are prone to curtailing the peoples liberty to extend their own privileges. Since the people generally lack the desire to rule and the means to impose their will, they have an advantage as freedoms defenders. Yet acquisition of power is liable to foment the peoples restlessness, stir up their greed, and spark a hunger to supervise and control. Both the nobles and the people can safeguard, and both can curtail, freedom it depends on the circumstances.

American Purpose a young magazine, media project, and intellectual community that seeks to defend and promote liberal democracy in the United States recently published a short series of essays on the threats to freedom posed by national conservatism. Consistent with its centrism and its admirable commitment to hosting a range of voices, the magazine commissioned writings from serious students of American politics who recognize that a healthy liberal democracy draws strength from both left and right. Contributors, however, failed to give the national conservatives sufficient credit for illuminating the place of nationhood, tradition and cultural particularity in a healthy civic life. They occasionally imputed the excesses of national conservatism to conservatism generally. And they downplayed the extent of the progressive elites illiberal overreach that has provoked a good measure of national conservatisms illiberal overreach.

In Whose Good, Anyway? William Galston charges the natcons with contravening Americas fundamental principles and misunderstanding the character of American society. A Brookings Institution senior fellow and Wall Street Journal columnist, Galston especially faults leading national conservatives for calling on government to counter the rising tide of woke progressivism by promoting Christianity and by throwing the states weight behind a common good grounded in a distinctive and uniform conception of human flourishing.

The unalienable rights that the U.S. Constitution aims to secure do have a root in biblical faith, but the Declaration of Independence holds them also to be self-evident that is, truths of reason available to men and women of all faiths and persuasions. The American constitutional order, moreover, is a response, Galson writes, to the emergence of deep religious divisions that wracked Europe in the 16th and 17th centuries. Since Americas founding, when the principal religious conflicts in the country were those between rival Protestant sects, differences of opinion about faith have widened and associations have multiplied. Over the centuries, the U.S. Constitutions wisdom of focusing on the securing of individual rights while leaving questions about faith and flourishing to individuals and their communities has become even more salient.

In Anton, Deneen, and Hazony, Gabriel Schoenfeld also calls out national conservatisms illiberalism. A contributing editor at American Purpose and a senior fellow at the Niskanen Center, he rebukes new-right arguments that seem to go beyond opposing illegal immigration to opposing immigration. Like Galston, Schoenfeld rejects the proposition that political cohesion in the United States must be built around state support for Christian faith, which would erode the traditional American dedication to religious liberty that protects all faiths while establishing none. And he exposes the sobering convergence of opinion between new-right polemicists who denounce liberalocratic despotism in America and the philosopher Herbert Marcuse, the anti-democratic guru of the New Left who, in the 1960s, decried the United States as a form of totalitarian democracy.

Corbin Barthold elaborates on the strange affinities between the natcons frequently feverish tone and rigid stance and certain hard-left tendencies stretching back to the French Revolution. From his position as internet policy counsel at TechFreedom, Barthold contends in The Jacobinism of the New Right that the American Right has become a reactionary force. It is led by figures who, according to Barthold, crave radical action and condemn dissent while practicing a rhetoric of Jacobinism, in which society is rotten, foes are everywhere, and the situation is dire; in which the need for drastic action is urgent, the cause of the righteous is certain, and the hesitancy of doubters is evil. In their disgust with America as it is and their demand for sweeping change, the new right breaks sharply with one of their heroes, argues Barthold. Central to Edmund Burkes sensibility, Barthold reminds, was the British statesmans admonition that it is with infinite caution that any man ought to venture upon pulling down an edifice which has answered in any tolerable degree for ages the common purposes of society.

While all the contributors condemn woke progressivism, Barthold comes closest to appreciating the scope of the lefts role in dividing the nation. In thrall to identity politics, tolerant of the riots that suit them, and addicted to passing transformative, albeit unpopular, legislation, the original anti-Burkeans appear utterly uninterested in adopting the political caution that the Right has discarded, he writes. Woke corporations, ideologically non-diverse universities, and the mainstream media are trucking in the soil from which the Rights paranoia grows. But if Bartholds description of progressive extremism across politics, business, education, and the media is correct, then the right far from suffering paranoia confronts nation-wide public dysfunction provoked by, but invisible to, crucial segments of the left.

Schoenfeld also highlights perils from a progressivism on the left that rejects pluralism and free speech. He minimizes them, though, suggesting that the perils are more about right-wing opportunism than left-wing political malfeasance: In the electoral arena the progressive agenda is a gift to Republican office seekers looking for a foil, just as in the intellectual arena it is grist for right-wing thinkers all too eager to conflate the excrescences of progressivism with the essence of liberal democracy itself.

Galston gives more reason for hope than his colleagues. He acknowledges that there are progressives who want to turn the world upside down, but maintains that they are not the majority of Democrats. Contrary to the bleak picture presented by the natcons, Galston asserts that there is a reasonable center-left with which the center-right could do business in matters ranging from correctives to the deficiencies of the market to countering indoctrination in the schools, devising a sane immigration policy, and recognizing the nation-state as the best vehicle for securing individual rights and citizens well-being.

But Galston obscures the bad news about progressivisms sway, asserting, for example, that evidence that CRT is widely taught in our public schools is hard to find. If he means the complex doctrine created in elite law schools called critical race theory, then he is correct: K-12 schools generally do not assign the writings of Professors Kimberl Crenshaw, Richard Delgado and Derrick Bell.

Yet evidence abounds that political correctness is stronger than ever today. Curricula and conduct reveal that schools around the country teach children to discriminate based on race. And workshops for educators and administrators show that under the guise of diversity, equity, and inclusion, schools indoctrinate students in CRTs defining ideas: The United States is divided into an oppressor and oppressed class; by virtue of their race, white people are guilty and black people are victims; in understanding politics, facts and logic must be subordinated to victims lived experience; and free speech and the examination of a diversity of perspectives must give way to protecting feelings and enforcing social-justice orthodoxy.

This is not to justify right-wing illiberalism but to recognize that it stems in many cases from a defensive overreaction to left-wing illiberalism. To safeguard freedom, we must grasp the threats from both camps and their interconnections.

Peter Berkowitz is the Tad and Dianne Taube senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University. From 2019 to 2021, he served as Director of Policy Planning at the U.S. State Department. His writings are posted at PeterBerkowitz.com and he can be followed on Twitter @BerkowitzPeter.

See more here:

Natcons, Progressive Elites, and Illiberal Overreach - RealClearPolitics

It does not take much to understand efforts to rename geographic features or places with offensive names. Simply imagine that the names in question insulted white people, denigrated prominent religious denominations or honored terrorists who killed U.S. citizens. Such names would be gone in a heartbeat.

Fort Lewis College professor, author and Herald contributor Andrew Gulliford detailed a renewed effort to clean up offensive place names in the Heralds Weekend Edition (Feb. 12-13.) In that, he outlined the complexity of such a move, both in terms of cost and logistics and the need to decipher the meaning and intent of those names. It is not always simple.

Gulliford wrote specifically of Interior Secretary Deb Haalands creation of the Advisory Committee on Reconciliation in Place Names and her intention of eliminating any use of the word squaw on federal lands. That is an example of what is at issue and what is at stake.

As Gulliford notes, offensive names do not necessarily suggest offensive intent. Some are offensive simply because times have changed and what was once common nomenclature is now considered inappropriate. Figuring out which names should be changed and which have historical significance sufficient to keep them is neither simple nor easy. But neither is it silly or a waste of time.

The word squaw has been around for about 400 years. It can reportedly be traced to an Algonquin word meaning simply woman. Over the years, however, its usage suggests that it could be most accurately translated as a slur. Haaland is correct in wanting to eliminate it.

There are those who would dismiss such efforts as political correctness or excess sensitivity. But it is no coincidence that the names they would defend are almost always offensive to racial minorities.

Changing Squaw Mountain, as Gov. Jared Polis would do, is one example. Mount Evans is another. A fourteener visible from the Denver area, the peak is named after a Colorado territorial governor who was also involved in the Sand Creek Massacre in which 150 Cheyenne and Arapaho mostly women and children were murdered for no reason.

The Little Bighorn Battlefield National Monument is another example, but with a twist. It includes the Custer National Cemetery, named after George Armstrong Custer, and that is an embarrassment to the United States. Custer was not only engaged in what can now be seen as genocide but was clearly a fool.

The 19th century was the zenith of war on horseback and European military observers, men who knew what they were talking about, had described Native American warriors as the finest light cavalry in the world. Nonetheless, Custer took on a force of several thousand Lakota, Cheyenne and Arapaho warriors with a couple hundred cavalrymen. It is too bad about his troopers, but Custer got what he had coming. Honoring him reflects well on no one.

As Gulliford pointed out, cleaning up the names of places and things will not be easy, cheap or without controversy. It nonetheless deserves to be done.

Durango Herald editorial board

Read the original post:

Durango Herald: Changing offensive names is not easy, but should be done nonetheless - coloradopolitics.com

It might sound improbable, but 13 months after President Trump left the White House, Americans have become even more politically polarized, according to a new RealClear Opinion Research survey, with fissures appearing among Democratic voters that mirror the profound discord roiling the Republican Party.

Despite two years of economic upheaval culminating in the worst inflation in 40 years, our divisions are not primarily economic. Instead, they are driven by a host of social and cultural flashpoints ranging from perceptions of race, immigration policy, and transgender issues to voters feelings about the U.S. flag and about America itself.

Ironically, one question in the new survey did evoke a response that spanned much of the ideological spectrum a latent desire for a third political party. A certain logic underlies that yearning: On a host of policy issues, Republicans have become more conservative, while Democrats have drifted inexorably leftward and in a country where the prevalent impulses were historically centrist. Moreover, a new strain of populism has gained strength among voters in both parties, a phenomenon epitomized by the simultaneous appeal of Donald Trump and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders.

In todays Congress, Sanders is one of only two U.S. senators who officially identifies as an independent (none are in the House), meaning that the 40% of Americans who decline to describe themselves as either an R or a D are virtually unrepresented in Washington. At a time when Americans can choose 15 major auto manufacturers when shopping for a family car, our culturally divided, geographically dispersed, and multi-ethnic electorate of 168 million registered voters is shoe-horned into only two political parties.

This is one reason pollsters and social scientists, in a search for common ground, keep looking for more detailed ways to define the electorate. In 2017, center-right election analyst David Winston used information from the Voter Survey to group voters into five clusters while concluding that policy issues mattered more than demographics in the election that produced the Trump presidency. The same year, using its own polling data, the Pew Research Center identified nine voting groups while probing the widening gap on values in American elections. (Click on the chart below to enlarge it.)

Another organization, More in Common, dissected the electorate into seven segments which range from Progressive Activists on the left to Devoted Conservatives on the right. In their October 2018 report, the authors assert that the five groups in the ideological middle (Traditional Liberals, Passive Liberals, Politically Disengaged, Moderates, and Traditional Conservatives) make up an exhausted majority that disdains name-calling and polarization, even though they havent figured out how to stop it.

The same month, RealClearPolitics unveiled its first original public opinion survey, beginning with a project that also sought to shed light on the animating attitudes of American voters. Under the supervision of John Della Volpe, director of polling for RealClear Opinion Research, this survey employed a new set of polling questions and other research methods such as documenting voters impressions of images like a U.S. flag on the side of a barn to produce a report challenging the idea that America is a 50-50 nation neatly divided between Republican red and Democratic blue voters. In the end, Della Volpe and his team identified Five Tribes that better explain the visceral and varied perspectives of U.S. voters.

Topline findings: The full polling breakdown

Since 2018, the attitudes and alliances of these tribes have shifted and consolidated. Along the way they have become even more partisan, and the cultural divergences even more stark.

When we first examined the Five Tribes of American voters, we were struck that even when we got beyond current events and the 24-hour political news cycles, Americans were deeply divided about the country we all share, notes Jonathan Chavez, chief analytics officer for RealClear Opinion Research.

In the ensuing 3 years, weve only seen those divisions deepen, as disruptions to the daily lives of many have caused many to re-examine some of their most closely held values, Chavez added. What Im most struck by from this survey is that divisions are not just partisan: Within both parties, we see fundamental disagreements about America, its history, and its future.

As the tectonic plates shifted beneath the ground of Americans during COVID lockdowns, a summer of racial discontent, a divisive presidential election, and the searing attack on the U.S. Capitol, the makeup of the Five Tribes has shifted along with it.

The original tribes were identified as Make America Great Again (12%); Mainline GOP (14%); The Detached (24%); Independent Blues (24%); and The Resistance (26%). These groupings still exist in some degree, although there have been subtle changes, Della Volpe noted this week. And as their tribes priorities shifted, the previous labels dont apply to all of them as neatly as before. For starters, the Independent Blues developed even more affinity to Democrats and we have changed their tribal names. At the same time, the Mainline GOP tribe with its name unchanged nearly doubled in size. The new labels and their percentages this time around are: MAGA (14%); Mainline GOP (27%); Institutionalist Democrats (20%); Woke Democrats (19%); and Multicultural Moderates or Democratic-Leaning Multiculturalists (20%). Here are some defining characteristics of each group.

MAGA: Split almost evenly between men and women, this is the whitest tribe, the one least supportive of even legal immigration, and the only one to reject the premise that racial diversity makes us stronger. And they reject it by more than 2 to 1 (37% disagree while only 16% agree). Part of this may be a gut reaction against political correctness, which they abhor, but thats hardly all it is. Those belonging to the MAGA tribe, 93% of whom voted for Trump in 2020, are also the most pessimistic. Eight in 10 say they have more fear than hope about Americas future. Morning Again in America devotees of Ronald Reagan they are not.

Mainline GOP: This is now the largest tribe, and the one that grew the most since 2018. They are 81% white, 57% male, and older than the electorate as a whole. Although 89% of them voted for Trump in 2020, their views on racial inclusion and immigration diverge sharply from the MAGA crowd. Four in 10 Mainliners view legal immigration positively, while only 12% dont. In addition, only 5% disagree with the statement racial diversity makes us stronger. At the same time, this is a tribe with a dim view of political correctness and cancel culture. Fully 88% believe that people have become overly sensitive.

One of the issues illustrating the divide between the MAGA and Mainline sects within the GOP is vaccine mandates and masking. When researchers showed a photo of a young child wearing a mask outside in their school environment, Mainline GOP were split nearly evenly on whether this illustrates what is right (30%) or wrong (26%) about America in their eyes (+4 right about America). MAGA Republicans, on the other hand, were more likely to believe this image represented something that was wrong about the country (+8 wrong). This difference of opinion between these two tribes on the vaccine was also illustrated when respondents were shown an image of an older man receiving a vaccine from a clinic. By a 16-point margin (36%-20%) Mainline GOPers thought that was whats right about the country a margin of more than three times (32%-27%) the number of MAGA members who felt the same.

Institutionalist Democrats: This tribe has a new designation, but they are not all new to politics. Some members were previously in the Independent Blue segment; others migrated from The Resistance or even the dissipated Detached tribe. Institutionalist Democrats are the most female of the five tribes, and 72% white. They voted overwhelmingly for Joe Biden in 2020 (82%), but are split nearly evenly on Bidens performance in the Oval Office. Generally, they arent happy campers, or terribly optimistic people. Only 7% of them express faith in the next generation of American leaders. Likewise, only one-fourth of them think the Democratic Party cares about people like them (and almost none of them believe the GOP cares). Fully two-thirds wish there was another political party.

Woke Democrats: With Trump safely out of the Oval Office (at least for now), this cohort formerly named The Resistance has decreased in size the most of any tribe. It is more female than male, but not by a huge margin (54% to 46%) and 63% white. It is the youngest tribe (56% are Millennials or Gen Z). Nearly 8 in 10 Woke Democrats rate Bidens job performance as excellent (30%) or good (49%), and most say he has met (48%) or exceeded (17%) their expectations. Only 10% wish there was another political party.

It would seem that the Woke Tribe not only still despise Donald Trump, theyve stayed in love with Joe Biden. What they dont love, necessarily, is the good ol USA. They are the only cohort that doesnt think cancel culture is making the country worse, and they do not want schools to teach traditional American history and values. They think American-style capitalism is broken and 71% claim there are better countries than the United States a sentiment that puts them at odds with every other tribe.

Similar to divisions on the right regarding masking, we find similar cleavages among factions within the Democratic party. When Institutionalist Democrats see the Blue Lives Matter flag flying alongside the American flag most are neutral (53%), and about as many say this represents what is right (23%) about America, as wrong (25%). On the other hand, when the same image is shown to the Woke tribe, theres a strong rejection of the image. Only 7% approve of this image, 58% disapprove, with 35% remaining on the fence.

Democratic-Leaning Multiculturalists. This tribe broke for Biden in 2020 by a 63% to 34% margin, but many nonetheless display some of the sensibilities of swing voters. They are 52% female and 48% male, which comes close to replicating the overall electorate, and they are young, too, although not quite as young as the Wokesters: Half of them are either Millennials or Gen Z.

This is the most racially diverse tribe (only 47% are white) and are the most likely to agree with the statement: I often feel under attack because of the color of my skin. (The second-highest on this question, instructively, are members of the MAGA tribe.)

Democratic-Leaning Multiculturalists are not easy to pigeon-hole. They trail only Woke Democrats in believing that structural racism makes it difficult for Hispanics and African Americans to get ahead in life. Yet they are less enamored of the benefits of immigration than Mainline Republicans. When asked whether cancel culture is a danger, Multiculturalists occupy the middle ground between the two Democratic and two Republican tribes. They are optimists, too. This tribe recorded the highest score expressing faith in the next generation of leaders to move the country forward.

The Democratic-Leaning Multiculturalists are caught in the middle of a culture war that doesnt address their concerns, says Jonathan Chavez. They simultaneouslybelieve that structural racism must be addressed, and that we must teach traditional American values. While they were a decisive part of Biden's 2020 victory, they are a segment of voters that much of Washington's current politics dont seem to address.

It's an oversight that could prove decisive in 2024.

Carl M. Cannon is the Washington bureau chief for RealClearPolitics. Reach him on Twitter @CarlCannon.

Go here to read the rest:

Revisiting the 'Five Tribes' of American Voters - RealClearPolitics

Almost six out of 10 Spaniards (58.9%) feel afraid (21.4%) or worried (37.5%) about the possibility that Vox will be part of the Government of Spain, according to the 40dB survey. for EL PAS and Cadena SER. The feelings provoked in those surveyed by the fact that Vox comes to occupy ministries vary depending on the party they have voted for: it causes concern or fear in 95.3% of Podemos voters, 86.6% of those in More Country, to 80.7% of those of the PSOE and 46.6% of those of Ciudadanos. PP voters are divided: almost a third (32.8%) are concerned (24%) or afraid (8.8%), while almost half (46.6%) are calm (28 .2%) or even satisfaction (18.4%).

The study is based on 2,000 telematic interviews carried out between January 27 and February 1, just at the start of the regional campaign in Castilla y Len, and has a confidence level of 95%. On February 13, after learning the results of the regional elections (in which Vox had 13 seats and the popular Fernndez Maueco was far from the absolute majority), Abascal demanded entry into the Castilian and Leonese Government under the same conditions as Ciudadanos. in the previous legislature: the vice presidency and three ministries, in addition to the presidency of the Cortes.

According to the 40dB. survey, 42% of Spaniards believe that Vox should be treated as just another party, but 47.6% advocate some type of cordon sanitaire: 21.1% believe that its use should not be allowed. entry into the Government, 11.6% support its outlawing, 5.3% that it should not be debated with it and 9.6% are committed to debating, but without reaching agreements. On the other hand, among the PP and Cs voters, a large majority believes that it should be treated as just another party: 71.4% and 65.6%, respectively.

What affects the most is what happens closest. To not miss anything, subscribe.

subscribe

When respondents are asked to define Vox ideologically, the most repeated term is fascist (28.5%), followed by Spanish nationalist (15.2%), patriot (12.1%) and xenophobic (10%). The label most used by the voters of the PSOE and United We Can is fascist, while those of Ciudadanos define it as Spanish nationalist and those of Vox see their own party as patriot. PP voters, the most likely to end up voting for Vox, consider him patriot (24.6%), Spanish nationalist (22.5%) and conservative (15.3%). But 9.3% call it fascist and 7.3% ultra.

Consistent with the above, 66.7% of those surveyed strongly or fairly agree that Vox is a far-right party, while 22.4% disagree with that definition. Up to 55% consider that it does not respect the rights of minorities such as the LGTBI group or immigrants; while almost a third (32.7%) do not share this statement. The survey reveals that the idea that Vox breaks with political correctness, daring to say what many people think has taken hold (51.5% share it), but only 29.1% believe that it is a party that defend ordinary people against the elites.

Once again, it is important to look at the opinion of PP voters: 59.5% consider Vox to be on the extreme right (disagree, 32.8%), 50.6% think that it respects the rights of minorities ( 37.5% disagree), 73.8% think that it breaks with what is politically correct (18.3% disagree) and 53.3% believe that it defends ordinary people against the elites (35 % disagree with this statement).

The rejection of immigrants is the idea that those surveyed most associate with Vox. When a dozen proposals are mentioned to them and they are asked to say which ones they identify with Abascals party (up to a maximum of three), the most cited (45.9%) is that of expelling undocumented immigrants, as well as immigrants who commit crimes. They are followed by suppressing the abortion and euthanasia laws (29.8%), repealing the law on gender violence (25.8%) and outlawing separatist parties (25.8%). The Vox proposal that generates the greatest rejection is the repeal of the abortion and euthanasia laws (40.9%). It is followed by the protection of bullfighting and hunting (23.1%), the suppression of the law on gender violence (21.6%) and the expulsion of immigrants (20.2%). With slight differences, these are also the proposals that PP voters most dislike: 28.6% oppose abolishing the abortion and euthanasia laws despite the fact that the Popular Group has appealed both to the Constitutional, on 22 .4% disagree with the expulsion of undocumented immigrants, 18.4% with removing the sex change operation from public health: and 16.2% with protecting the bulls and hunting.

63.4% of Spaniards believe that Vox defends large companies and 60.9% believe that it benefits the population with higher incomes. Only 25.7% of women think that Vox defends them, which explains why it has almost double the intention to vote among men (16.2%) than among women (9.9%).

59.7% of those surveyed believe that the leaders of Vox belong to the upper class and 55.8% consider them offensive, very given to insult. Only 37.3% see them as prepared politicians, 35.3% brave and 27.9% honest.

DATA SHEET

Ambit: Spain. Universe: population of legal age and resident in Spain (except Ceuta and Melilla) with the right to vote. Sample size: 2,000 interviews. Methodology: online interview. Error range: 2.2% for a confidence level of 95.5% and for P=Q. Date of realization: from January 27 to February 1.

View original post here:

Vox's entry into the Government worries six out of 10 Spaniards - Then24

A hijab is the most typical target of Islamophobia in the West. Despite all the rules of political correctness customary nowadays, Muslim women who wear a hijab in non-Arab countries encounter discrimination and prejudice. The Palestinian-Canadian singer Nemah Hasan, who is better known by the name Nemahsis, has released a new song called Dollar Signs, in which she describes the oppressive attitude of Western society to those women. With half a million followers on TikTok and thousands of views on YouTube, she hopes to use it to expose the world of young Muslim women living in Canada. And on the way she doesnt spare criticism of the West.

The video clip of the song in which she describes her personal experience, provokes discomfort. She is described in it as an object, as a young woman who knows she will never be considered an equal among equals. She describes what is expected of her: to be neutral, not to express an opinion, and mainly to remain silent. As in her previous clips, for her being different is a source of strength upon which she negotiates her social status.

In effect, Hasans battle with the hijab is what led to her breakout. About a year ago a multimillion-dollar cosmetics corporation asked her to appear in their ads. They didnt offer me any recompense, she said. Their reason was its more of an opportunity for the people of your community. She did the photo shoot, but felt afterward she had been exploited. Although she told them not to use her image, she says the corporation ignored her and used it anyway.

I felt like such an idiot, she told the publication Complex. I was supposed to be strong and independent. I was too proud to admit what had happened. But I will not be anybodys victim.

She decided to leave her comfort zone and wrote the song What if I Took it Off for You, which became her biggest hit.

Hasan is battling a complicated series of identifies. On her Instagram post, she wrote, ... for everyone that doesnt fit the mould and has felt the need to compromise their individuality in order to be accepted my wish is to echo your voices.

In her songs, she attacks the political correctness that forces her to blend in, and repeatedly asks that people stop seeing in her only the Muslim woman with the hijab. This pigeonholing, she says, only caused her to hate herself. I wasted two decades longing for a lighter skin and hair color, she wrote in the introduction to Paper Thin. I spent most of my life hating the features that I like most about myself at the moment. They wont like you until you learn to like yourself.

Not only an item of clothing

Women who wear a hijab are called motahajiba (veiled women). In a book published in 2018, Burkini, Confessions of a Veiled Woman, Lebanese journalist and author Maya el-Hajj described the world of a hijab-wearing woman in a secular Arab community, and the opposition and difficulties she encounters. There is a great deal of similarity between the singer from Canada and the writer from Beirut, but not just between them. In recent years, more and more women who wear a hijab are revealing their inner struggle to define their identity and the boundaries of freedom of choice within the framework forced upon them.

Nahed Ashkar Sharary, a doctoral student at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, stresses in a conversation with Haaretz that the hijab constitutes part of the identity of Muslim women. Sharary, who lectures in a program for gender studies and is a member of the staff at the Mandel Center for Leadership in the Negev, says they are fighting to make a place for it even in the Western countries where they live whlle also refusing to accept the Muslim patriarchy that oppresses women. She explains that the 1970s saw the development of the Islamic feminist stream, which promotes religious and political criticism.

The Wests preoccupation with the hijab is Orientalism. Dr. Nuzha Allassad-Alhuzail, a senior lecturer in the School of Social Work at Sapir Academic College, tells Haaretz that Muslim women, mainly young ones, wear the hijab as a reaction to the Western oppression that customarily reviles their culture. Its like asking a Jew why he wears a kippa or asking a Christian why he wears a cross, says Allassad-Alhuzail, author of the book When the Shadow is Big its a Sign that the Sun is Going Down, about the lives of three generations of Bedouin women. She says its a reaction by Muslim women who are trying to become part of a society that presumes to accept them but sees them as others.

Who said that you have to remove the hijab to be free? she asks. One way that women adopt their native culture is by wearing a hijab, and they choose to adopt traditional behaviors. In doing so, they make their identity present, their self as they see themselves.

Ashkar Sharary explains, based on her research, how independent Muslim women living in Western society solve their inner conflict about wearing the hijab. Its done by distancing themselves from the patriarchal religious laws, while meticulously observing religious laws and relying on the principal of preserving a persons soul, which encourages strengthening and preserving the self, she says. She gives an example of Muslim women in Israel who are nurturing a critical-religious identity that is trying to strengthen their selfhood, based on religious interpretation that empowers them and enables them to oppose patriarchal norms.

The phenomenon of women who use Islamic law and sharia regulations to take ownership of their voice, their desires and their rights, without questioning the basic rules of Islam, is steadily increasing, she notes.

Yearning for God

Dr. Ibtisam Barakat, a lecturer at Bar Ilan University and at Safed Academic College, says that sociologically, the hijab preserves the collective identity of immigrant Muslim women. These items of clothing and symbols are things that characterize minorities worldwide who want to preserve their identity as a minority particularly in Western countries, and especially women.

Barakat stresses that many women consciously and of their own free will wear a hijab. She cites the late post-colonial scholar Saba Mahmood, who claimed that wearing a hijab is a practice that symbolizes piety and belief in God. Pious Muslim women autonomically choose to wear the hijab as part of their daily practices of modesty, perseverance and humility. And that is based on their inner faith and their yearning for a connection with God, she says.

So is wearing a hijab a personal choice, or a counterreaction to the West? Singer Nemah Hasan proves that Muslim women who wear a hijab are making a statement that is being heard and that influences the younger generation in the West. Hasan is one example, and she will be followed by additional women who keep the hijab. Allassad Alhuzeil sums up by saying: The women who wear a hijab dont want to be enslaved to the Western idea, and at the same time they dont want to surrender to the dictates of the patriarchal society from which they come. Each one uses the hijab in a way that serves her objective.

See original here:

Is it anti-feminist to wear hijab? - Haaretz

Su Yiming, the Chinese snowboard whiz kid who took the Beijing 2022 Olympic Games by storm, is already making unprecedented waves. Netizens in China have gushed about his friendship with Eileen Gu, sports broadcasters rave about his performances, and brands have competed for his attention.

The teenager already partners with KFC and the Chinese beverage company Genki Forest, says The Global Times. However, his standout performance at the Olympics has set him up for even bigger marketing deals and sponsorships.

The Global Times also pointed to a report by Chinese financial news outlet yicai.com that highlights how businesses secured 161 endorsement deals with athletes in 2021, the highest number since 2015 and almost the total number of athletic endorsements between 2018 and 2020. Sure enough, these signings are a winning market strategy under normal circumstances. But at a time when the Chinese government has pushed hard to demystify celebrities, young fans are left without role models; so, the appeal of young rebels like Su Yiming has grown.

Su Yiming promotes beverage brand Genki Forest. Photo: Screenshot, Genki Forest ad

Sus cool demeanor and devil-may-care attitude make him a rebel to many a rebellious nature that is very appealing in a boring age of political correctness. And unlike other celebrities who irked Beijing with their eccentricities, Su seems to have enchanted the higher-ups with his charming personality and rebellious nature. As such, even The Global Times a tabloid that often reflects what officials of the Chinese Communist Party are actually thinking gushed over Su. Recently, the newspaper raved about Sus reaction upon winning silver with a striking 1,800. His I dont care about that answer when discussing his rating proved to many that medals, points, pr accolades mean nothing to Su and that he is there only there for the joy of competing.

Luxury brands should take notice because this snowboarding prodigy has enough talent, popularity, and credibility to maximize the appeal of any label. And it doesnt hurt that Su broke barriers and was recognized by the Guinness Book of World Records as the first snowboarder to land a backside 1980 Indy Crail. But more importantly, his rebellious nature makes storytelling more effective and powerful.

In a world where everyone tries to fit in, turning your back on conventional society and being yourself unapologetically can still be cool. Rebels like Serena Williams, Colin Kaepernick, John McEnroe, Dennis Rodman, and Ilie Nstase delighted their fans with their different approaches to sports, and brands loved associating with their unique stances.

Luxury brands, in particular, need authentic ambassadors to sell their products and services to younger generations of consumers. Take, for example, Gen Zers: They are more individualistic, unpredictable, and inherently skeptical than past generations. Therefore, brands must select ambassadors with enduring appeal and the power to usher in new forms of culture.

Athletes like Su and Eileen Gu are credible enough to create an emotional attachment between themselves and the brand. And both have seized on the culture of celebrity worship and enhanced their distinct tendencies, making them even more captivating. Sure enough, their quirks and idiosyncrasies make them relatable. But their rebelliousness is their most marketable characteristic.

Dennis Rodman was called a rebel without a pause. His meltdowns were well documented, yet brands were eager to associate with him. Tennis bad boy Ilie Nstase held the nickname Nasty. But despite his reputation, he signed marketing contracts with various brands, including Princess Hotels International. Colin Kaepernicks protest against police brutality is celebrated globally today even though, in 2016, the NFL ostracized him for his beliefs. And finally, Serena Williams shocked attendees at the 2018 French Open with her Black Panther catsuits. Yet she still signed million-dollar endorsement deals with major companies, including Audemars Piguet, Nike, Wilson, Lincoln, and JP Morgan Chase. These disruptive athletes have won legions of admirers by breaking barriers, and businesses have garnered prestige and brand equity by uniting with them.

Visit link:

Su Yiming Is the Rebel That Luxury Needs - Jing Daily

With its acerbic wit and edgy depiction of down-at-heel Dublin, The Commitments is considered a snapshot of the 1980s.

ut despite the critics who say political correctness is killing comedy, actor Colm Meaney, who starred as Jimmy Rabbitte Sr in the movie, sees no reason why the film could not be made today.

Yes, I think it could still be produced today I dont see whats offensive in The Commitments, he says.

But its time we stopped I dont get this backlash against political correctness. Whats wrong with being decent to people?

He insists that there is no need for comedy to be offensive and that society is waking up to the awful hurt caused by misogyny and racism.

Im raising two daughters (Brenda, 38 and Ada, 17) and I saw this through their school years, he says.

Male violence on females starts in the playground and thats where it should be stopped. Guys dont just suddenly learn this when they go to college or work. Its there from the beginning.

Reverting back to the screen comedy debate, the father-of-two continues: I think peoples sensibility changes over the years.

John Cleese has become a bit of a reactionary gentleman in his old age.

Im a huge fan of John and I love his work, but he has developed reactionary tendencies.

I dont have any problem with that. Weve developed a sensitivity and an understanding to what language means, especially to minority people.

There was a time when it was OK to call us Micks and Paddys and all that kind of stuff. It never particularly bothered me, but it wasnt very nice, was it?

So equally, there is much more offensive racial names, so we dont need them to be funny.

With an acting career spanning four decades, a Golden Globe nomination and success on both sides of the Atlantic, its fair to say Meaney is one of Irelands greatest exports.

Sci-fi devotees will remember him from his Enterprise duties on Star Trek as Chief Miles OBrien, while others will immediately think of him in The Commitments.

But the acting veteran confesses that he ruled out a role in The Lord of the Rings straight away.

My agent was asking me about it at the time. There were enquires and I dont know what they were offering me, but I didnt want to go to New Zealand for three years. I hate all that fantasy stuff anyway and I probably would have been miserable.

Pressed on how hes managed to stay so fit and energetic as he nears his 69th birthday, Meaney says: I dont know drinking and smoking.

Both my wife and I eat mostly organic foods, and I think thats helped a bit.

Im lucky with my mothers genes. She died in 2018 and she was 96. Who knows? I dont have a secret. Its probably the Finglas in me.

He says Covid finally crept up on him after two years of avoiding it.

Despite receiving his booster jab in Dublin just before Christmas, he still fell victim to the Omicron variant.

We went two years without getting it and then suddenly Ines and I felt a bit sniffly, and we soon realised wed caught it, but Ive had worse head colds. I guess when its your turn, its your turn.

We had a quiet Christmas and New Years here in Majorca where we live, and we havent been out much since then and if we have, its just been to the grocery store.

So Ive no idea where we picked it up, but I guess this Omicron gets around.

The Dubliner divides his time between his homes on the Spanish island and Los Angeles.

He currently stars as Father Peter in Confession, which is out now on digital platforms.

Im usually in Ireland around three or four times a year, but I can sometimes go six to nine months without visiting, so I didnt really miss it during lockdown.

I was home before the festive period as I was doing a film called Marlowe. We shot the exteriors in Barcelona and the interiors in Dublin. Its based on the novel The Black-Eyed Blonde by John Banville. Neil Jordan and Liam Neeson directed it.

Reflecting on his friendship with Taken legend Neeson, Meaney adds: Ive known Liam for 40-odd years.

We were in The Abbey Theatre together many moons ago, when we were both boys.

Colm Meaney stars alongside Stephen Moyer in the church-based suspense mystery thriller, Confession, which is available on digital platforms now.

The rest is here:

Colm Meaney: 'Male violence on females starts in the playground and that's where it should be stopped' - Independent.ie

By Leah MarieAnn Klett, Assistant Editor | Tuesday, February 15, 2022Phil Robertson | HARPER COLLINS

Phil Robertson knows firsthand what it means to be a victim of cancel culture.

In 2013, the Duck Dynasty patriarch was suspended from the popular A&E show over his candid comments about homosexuality and religion in a GQ profile. He was swiftly condemned as a bigot by LGBT activist groups, including The Human Rights Campaign and GLAAD.

Five or six years ago, a guy came up and asked me, did I believe homosexual behavior was a sin, the 75-year-old duck hunter told The Christian Post. I quoted 1 Corinthians 6:9-10: Don't be deceived. Neither the sexually immoral, the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the thieves, the greedy drunks, they won't inherit the Kingdom of God,' Robertson said, citing [Paul's letter] to the church at Corinth. But you've been washed, you've been cleansed by the blood of Jesus, he added.

I just simply quoted him a verse, a Bible verse, where God stated what it is, he added. So it took him two weeks to figure out all I did was quote a Bible verse. He asked me a question and I just quoted [the Bible]. And when I quoted it, he took it and ran with it, because he thought I was just blowing smoke just off the top of my head.

Though backlash from the secular media was swift, the father, grandfather and great-grandfather pointed out that as a result of his boldness, a lot of good came forth.

We converted way more after that, he said. See what I'm saying? God works in mysterious ways.

Today, Robertson bears no ill will toward those who wanted to see him canceled: They rail against me in a lot of ways, but I forgive them, I love them all, he stressed. Yet, that incident sparked in him a fierce desire to push back against cancel culture, a phenomenon he believes is both antithetical to the Gospel and threatens to destroy free speech.

The two greatest commandments in the Bible, according to Jesus, was to love God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength, and to love your neighbor, he contended. What's happened is the so-called cancel culture are digging up the past of individuals, finding out where they made a mistake, finding out where they sin, and they pile on, they try to get them fired, and they do get them fired. They attack people. The problem with that type of thinking is that all of us have made mistakes, and all of us have sinned.

Scripture is clear that those who pass judgment on others ultimately condemn themselves, Robertson said, adding: Sinners are attacking everyone else, not realizing that they're condemning themselves because they're sinners too.

Everyone out there should remember everyone who cancels others, here and now, they themselves will be canceled later, he continued. So we better learn how to love one another, love God. And we better learn how to forgive people that make mistakes around us, or we ourselves will be canceled.

The founder of the Duck Commander Company cited 1 John 3:1, which reads: See what great love the Father has lavished on us, that we should be called children of God.

Those are the uncanceled, he explained. He (God) took away the written code and replaced it. Just love God and love your neighbor; I've removed all your past sins, they're blotted out. I'm not counting any of your future sins against you if you just trust me.

Those who put their faith in Jesus are uncancelled by the blood of Jesus; He got us out from under the written code and put us under a system of grace, Robertson added. It can't be earned. It's not, maybe if I do this. Just Love God. Love your neighbor, for crying out loud. It's really simple when you get right down to it. So He provided that for us.

Driven by a desire to promote the countercultural, unifying message of Jesus, Robertson penned his latest book, Uncanceled: Finding Meaning and Peace in a Culture of Accusations, Shame, and Condemnation.

I would say right now, if you're not following Jesus, you should because the suicide rate is up, the murder rate is up, the death rate is up," Robertson told CP. "The cancellation crowd, thats all up. People who made mistakes 200 years ago, we drag it up, take their statue down and bad mouth them, and I'm like, Whatever happened to forgiveness and love? So if we don't love God and don't love our neighbor, we've got some pretty rough days ahead of us here. For me and my family, we trust the Lord. We're going with God.

In Uncanceled, Robertson examines the motivations behind why people have the inclination to cancel one another, both in the secular world and in the Church. He argues that in a culture so obsessed with political correctness, the importance of respectful dialogue has been all but forgotten.

In America, you won't even get but three strikes, and you're out. But Jesus said Forgive them 70 times seven. That way, you're not all torn up over people and what they say, who curses you [who says] evil things about you. It's just the way the world is. You just learned to live with it, point them to Christ, keep moving, don't hold it against them. Be quick to forgive.

Everyone who wants to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted. We expect it. We embrace it. But we don't hold it against them. We just pray for them, he said.

Christians must realize, Robertson emphasized, that the goal isnt to get the approval of man or to win a culture war its to worship the God of the Bible instead of the god of political correctness.

It's not rocket science, but it does require a change of heart, he said. I'm 75. I came to know Jesus when I was 28, because I was like a dog chasing his tail. I just wasn't getting anywhere fast. I came to Jesus, he said.

Think about this: Immortality is riding on how we live our lives on the Earth, he posited. Loving God and loving each other is worth it. Immortality is at stake. When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, having canceled the written code with its regulations. He took it away, thank God, nailing it to the cross. Having disarmed the powers and authorities, He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross. What a beautiful thing God has done for us. I'm just trying to get others to join us.

Resting in the understanding that Jesus already paid for our sins allows a person to treat others with grace and live a life of freedom, Robertson said and will hopefully help unite an increasingly divided society.

Im pretty fired up about this, he said.

We need to put in the practice and be very forgiving and longsuffering, not holding things in the past, Robertson added. Put into practice the attitude of your Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, how He operated. You read it, and you say, I need to do that. I need to be like that. So give people time. Hopefully, their hearts will change. And they'll reach out to their neighbors and put into practice the greatest commands in the Bible, according to Jesus: Love God, love your neighbor. It always comes back to that.

Leah M. Klett is a reporter for The Christian Post. She can be reached at: leah.klett@christianpost.com

Go here to see the original:

'Duck Dynasty' patriarch Phil Robertson on why cancel culture is antithetical to the Gospel of Jesus - The Christian Post