Category Archives: Populism

Imagine the following: in response to last weeks disclosure that July 2023 was set to be the hottest month on record, and to the warning by United Nations secretary-general Antnio Guterres that the era of global warming has ended; the era of global boiling has arrived, it is agreed at an emergency meeting of the UN security council that the time for incrementalism and half measures is over.

In a single, sequestered location a complex of buildings somewhere in Europe 2,000 of the worlds most brilliant climate scientists, engineers, green tech entrepreneurs, data analysts and public policymakers are convened with a single, unambiguous objective. By August 2025, they must produce a planetary manual of detailed reforms to ensure that the 2015 Paris Agreement is honoured; to halve carbon emissions by 2030; and to reach net zero by 2050.

Crucially, their 18-volume Green Book becomes the single item at the COP summit that follows its publication. The work of the 2,000 must be turned into a binding international treaty for immediate implementation, bristling with meaningful sanctions to be imposed upon non-compliant nations.

Hard to envisage, isnt it?

I have now seen Oppenheimer three times, and Im going again today (I know, I know). More than any movie I can recall, Christopher Nolans epic cinematic saga rewards repeat viewings. The central dilemma faced by J Robert Oppenheimer (Cillian Murphy), the director of the Manhattan Project, is mythic in scale: how did a quantum physicist justify the creation of an atomic weapon so powerful that it killed 70,000 in a single blast? Was the success of his team a triumph of the intellect, or a betrayal of all that science stands for?

In this respect, the movie shreds the nerves and troubles the conscience to brilliant effect. But it also poses an unavoidable question: could anything resembling a Manhattan Project be organised today? Could the greatest minds and practical geniuses of our age be recruited to a single, integrated team to collaborate and tackle one of the many emergencies facing humanity: the towering challenges of artificial intelligence; of pandemic resilience; of global, national and intergenerational inequality; or of antibiotic resistance?

Probably the last undertaking to match this model was the Apollo mission in the 1960s, under the leadership of extraordinary individuals such as George Mueller, the head of Nasas Office of Manned Space Flight, and Gene Kranz, its chief flight director. And there were echoes of Oppenheimers work at Los Alamos or at least its urgency in the race to develop Covid vaccines and, in this country, in Kate Binghams leadership of the Vaccine Taskforce.

Dominic Cummings wrong about so much else was absolutely right that the government needed to take a lead once more in tackling the great problems of the age and tapping distributed expertise. The UKs Advanced Research and Invention Agency (Aria) that he championed is now up and running; explicitly modelled on Darpa, the US agency founded in 1958 that (for instance) drove the development of the internet. But Cummings is long gone from Downing Street and Aria however well-intentioned is scarcely a priority for Rishi Sunak.

It has often been argued that the Manhattan Project faced a unique threat: the danger that the Nazis might develop an atomic bomb first. In a similar vein, the success of the Apollo mission is frequently ascribed solely to the specific pressures of the cold war. But such claims are a cop-out. The existential perils faced by humanity today are different to those of the 20th century but no less pressing and certainly more numerous.

The true obstacle to new Manhattan Projects is the debasement of political culture. Modern populism recoils from intense strategic inquiries and state-of-the-art policy formulation: it thrives on the attribution of blame rather than the quest for solutions. Why pursue big ideas when you can persecute those in small boats?

Todays politicians prosper in loud and transient news cycles. As Richard Fisher puts it in his recent book, The Long View: Why We Need to Transform How the World Sees Time: The currency of political journalism is controversy: salient fights over issues in the present, with opposing actors, winners and losers. In this context, governments have lost the ability and the hunger to marshal talent and put it to work in the service of grand, focused strategies.

One of the thinkers most favoured in the resurgent Labour Party is the economist Mariana Mazzucato. In Mission Economy: A Moonshot Guide to Changing Capitalism (2021), she writes that what made [the moon landing] possible and successful was leadership by a government that had a vision, took risks to achieve it, put its money where its mouth was and collaborated widely with organisations willing to help.

Exactly so. In a speech in February, Sir Keir Starmer framed his core ambitions for government as five key missions. Yet, in recent weeks, the prospective prime minister has seemed intent only on keeping the Labour rocket earthbound especially in his panicked retreat from the green agenda after the Conservative victory in the Uxbridge and South Ruislip by-election.

In the last lap before the general election, nobody should begrudge Starmer a measure of caution. But there is a difference between caution and stasis. If he hopes to be a consequential prime minister, rather than simply an office-holder, he must turn his back definitively on the era of populism and its bogus claim that there are easy solutions to complex problems.

As John F Kennedy declared in his great speech at Rice University in September 1962: We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things not because they are easy, but because they are hard.

The horizon facing the next PM will be full of hard things. Most of them are global rather than narrowly domestic in character. We stand badly in need of the spirit of Oppenheimers Los Alamos, of the intensity and courage of Apollos mission control. Will our leaders recognise the urgency of the hour?

Read more from the original source:

In our debased world, a new, benign Manhattan Project is ... - The New European

Receive free US politics & policy updates

Well send you a myFT Daily Digest email rounding up the latest US politics & policy news every morning.

To judge by the trailer, Ridley Scotts biopic of Napoleon will entertain, inspire and extravagantly miss the point. But then so did the paintings of the same subject by Jacques-Louis David. Napoleon wasnt, or wasnt just, a conqueror. He was, over and above all else, historys greatest bureaucrat.

What survives of him isnt the French empire (which he left smaller than he found it) but the Banque de France, standardised education, prefects who keep French regions in line with Parisian diktat and a Civil Code that still influences jurisdictions around the world. To this day, the adjective Napoleonic describes something centralised and perhaps officious, not something martial.

Prepare for a Napoleonic world, then. The most important governmental trend today is the rise of protectionism. In the US, Europe, China and India, the state is turning from open trade to the cultivation of domestic industries. One justification is strategic: dont count on frail or hostile regimes for essential goods. Another is progressive: give skilled manual labour a break for once. Both trace back to the election-winning arguments of Donald Trump in 2016.

And so we have something of an irony to chew on. Populism, which sets itself against the elite, against the deep state, is going to leave it more powerful, not less. The technocrat, vilified so recently, will be the string-pulling figure of our age, dispensing subsidies, guiding this economic sector, shunning that one. Corporate leaders will have an ever tighter and more collusive relationship with government, not as a corrupt byproduct of the system but as a central feature of it. Populism was meant to take the governing class down a peg or two. Its main legacy will be something close to the opposite.

When would you rather be a politician or civil servant: now, when you might shape a whole industry, or in pre-populist times? When would you rather be a lobbyist in the swamp: during the laissez-faire age, when government and business were at least nominally distinct, or the protectionist one, when no sector wants to miss out on public largesse? (If chipmaking is strategic, why not agriculture?)

The elites are going to be stronger and more incestuous as a result of populism, a movement dedicated to their downfall. Perhaps we should have seen the paradox coming. Populists have a rebellious style but a paternalist agenda. They hate the so-called blob, but want it to shape much of the private sector. They resent elites, but more often for abdicating power over markets, over national borders than for hoarding it. They have a thing for direct democracy but also for Singapore. This is a movement that was always in two minds on the question of faceless authority.

The contradiction is most obvious on the US right. Trump apparatchiks dream of taming the deep state if their man gets to govern again. So-called Schedule F appointments would make it easier to fire civil servants. In an executive branch version of what the right has done to the judiciary over several decades, partisan cadres are being groomed for bureaucratic posts throughout Washington.

At the same time, the Trump world demands more industrial strategy. Is there a record of it being done well, anywhere on Earth, without a permanent, independent bureaucracy, licensed to plan and invest regardless of the churn of elected administrations?

At some point, demagogues will have to choose which they hate more: free trade or the blob. Curbing the one tends to empower the other. Notice that, though Trump started the move to industrial protection, it has achieved real substance under a centre-left government. The right could never follow its antitrade logic to its natural conclusion, which is the aggrandisement of officialdom. Trump managed to fall out with the national security state, of all things. The idea that he could abide a US version of Japans former, and lordly, Ministry of International Trade and Industry, is fanciful. Yet that kind of technocratic power is what, via the hand of his successor Joe Biden, populism has inadvertently created.

I fear, though cannot know, that we are living through the biggest wrong turn in government policy of my lifetime. A decade into this protectionist age, we might regret the waste, the pork, the higher consumer prices (do workers not pay those?) and the fragmentation of the west into squabbling trade zones. But the wrongness of this trend is another column. For now, what stands out is the improbable winner of it. Imagine being told in 2016 that elites would have more clout, not less, and owe it to their own tormentors.

janan.ganesh@ft.com

Read the original post:

Populism has given the elites more power than ever - Financial Times

Have Labours strategists achieved the impossible? Not only is the party 20 points ahead and in with a shot of winning four by-elections, but, perhaps even more impressively, its leader finally appears to be shrugging off his custardy sheen of squareness. According to a recent Politico profile, Keir Starmer has a dark secret: he once tried to raise some cash by illegally selling ice creams on a lads holiday in France. And yet, as Labour starts to behave like a party on the brink of power optimistically hoping to finalise its policy platform later this month all might not be as it seems.

Though Starmer appears to be doing well, his lead is soft, with less than a quarter of voters rating him as good. This is partly because his success is born of Tory failure rather than any great love for Labour and its policies: there is not much difference between his popularity ratings and Rishi Sunaks, and only around 40% of voters think the Labour Party has the nations best interests at heart.

Already registered? Sign in

This may not matter if Starmer only has to fight the Conservatives, but as he shores up the centre, he is at risk of leaving the partys Left flank vulnerable to the sort of populist insurgency the Tories have been dealing with for a decade. Labour is headed to power, like the Tories 10 or so years ago, with a centrist vision that leaves their more demanding supporters wanting more.

And so, a populist insurgency today is far more likely to take place on the Left than the Right. This isnt too surprising: in the current political climate, a party made up of largely disgruntled Tories would struggle to establish a new brand, would still be tainted by an association with the current administrations failings, and would struggle to pick votes from the Left, where about half the electorate now sits. Equally, it would not enjoy the policy influence that Ukip had in its heyday, when along with the Brexit Party it could knock off five or so points from the Tories polling.

Through the 2010s, this meant the difference between being in Downing Street or in opposition. As a result, the Tories were forced to keep them sweet by offering concessions, most obviously the EU referendum. But this kind of strategy would not work today. Given their dire performance in the polls, the Tories are likely to be defeated in the next election regardless of whether they lose votes to the Right. So, even if they do make concessions to an insurgent party, they will be in no position to enact them. Moreover, the Tories will be wary of any Right-wing coalition that might scare off moderate voters in the Lib Dem marginal seats in the south and east of England. In other words, now is evidently not the time for another Right-wing insurgency.

The situation on the Left, however, is very different. To form a government, Labour needs to win big and win across the country: an almost unprecedented electoral task. A Leftist party perhaps drawn from a few disgruntled MPs, outrider commentators and a celebrity or two picking up between 5-10% of the vote could cause a huge amount of damage without even winning any seats, especially if it gave the Tories the upper hand in some of the tightest marginals. In this instance, Starmer would be forced onto a civil war footing.

Moreover, there is a clear ideological gap for the Leftist insurgency to occupy. Starmers weakness is that on crime, on culture, on social issues and even on economics he is cautious about leaning into populist ideas. Not wanting to scare potential supporters, he talks little of nationalisation, seems sometimes beholden to identity politics and is squeamish about things such as reducing immigration to protect workers. But when it comes to economics, a large proportion of voters sit to the Left of Labour, especially Starmers version of it.

If one dares to look beyond Rachel Reevess sensible economic credentials, there is real scope for more radical economic policies to capture the public imagination, from ramping up tax rates to imposing rent controls. There is currently mass support for the nationalisation of energy something that Labour has been careful to step back from as well as for nationalising trains and water supply. A clear majority of British voters dont think the rich pay enough tax, and so a cost-of-living response that embraces some form of Universal Basic Income or increases taxes on the very richest would also go down well. Starmer, who knows he must appeal to the middle ground, wont dare to go down this path but a firebrand might.

All of which might start to sound a little like Corbynism rehashed, but the difference is that any successful Left-wing populist movement would have to be rooted in a patriotic vision that reflects the views of the British people. It could not be on the side of Stop the War or identity politics but would fly the flag and sing the national anthem. The new party would also embrace the Leftish vision of leaving the EU that appealed to many Brexiteers in left-behind regions: strengthening worker protections, for example, would be a popular policy with even Tory voters opposed to things such as zero-hours contracts and fire and rehire. It could also take a tough, Left-wing stance on crime and immigration, wresting these from the Right by portraying them as issues which protect the poorest.

Could the British Left learn from their European counterparts? Across the Continent, insurgent Leftists have recently achieved success by capitalising on the failure of both Right and Left and focusing instead on populist demands. Support for the centre-Left party Syriza surged in Greece after the financial crisis thanks to their anti-neoliberal, anti-globalist rhetoric; in Spain, while Podemos emerged as an anti-establishment option with Left-wing economics. Though these parties have now started to wane Syriza trailed nearly 23 points behind the conservative New Democracy party in the countrys elections this is no reason to discount their initial success (if anything, its a lesson in what happens once they start to stray from their initial pledges). A British Left-populist party could follow their example, first by developing a popular alternative to the old-Left establishment, and then by broadening their appeal towards big-tent populism.

Of course, electoral success would be harder to replicate here because of our first-past-the-post system but its far from impossible. At the very least, a new party could introduce itself to voters in next years general elections, and seek to capitalise on their results in 2025s locals. There are lots on the Left who seem alienated from Starmers centrism, especially those who espoused a sort of soft Corbynism. None yet seem committed to forming a new party, but it might serve them better in the short term than trying to wrestle the levers of Labour from him.

Forming a Left-wing populist party would not be easy. It would face the same hurdles as any other new party finding the funds, the supporters and the platform to get off the ground. Equally, it would have to find a way to delicately navigate policy traps that the Left has long struggled with, particularly surrounding the issues of immigration and social liberalism. But that doesnt make it impossible.

Farage and the various parties he led achieved their goal on Brexit because they parasitically latched onto the power of the Tories. Now that host is exhausted, but there is space for a Leftist visionary to take advantage of the rising Labour party. After all, the Conservatives won in 2019 by targeting Leftish voters who had grown tired of Labour, galvanising them both around Brexit and a more interventionist economy. This fell flat in government, but showed how populism could reach new electoral coalitions especially in disenchanted regions. Arguably, the SNP and Plaid Cymru have already succeeded in advancing some form of Left-wing populism, albeit framed around civic nationalism.

In a time of great political flux, where the main parties have been untethered from popular opinion, the opportunity for radical Left-wing thought has always existed. So far, it is unclear who will seize it, but that doesnt mean the conditions arent ripe for an insurgency. Politics can often act as a pendulum, and while Labour delights in the decline of Britains Right, they would do well to keep an eye on the rebirth of the Left.

Follow this link:

Starmer should beware a Left-wing insurgency - UnHerd

Okaz, Saudi Arabia, July 6

The end of the war in Europe in the late 1940s spawned a reconstruction process throughout the continent, led by France, which urgently needed labor. This necessity resulted in a large influx of Moroccans into the French job market. As the French economy experienced a recovery, the demand for this labor only increased. Many of these immigrants intended to stay in France temporarily, yet their stay eventually lengthened. These people lived in run-down neighborhoods close to the capital of Paris and other large cities. They formed a distinct community that posed a challenge to local urban areas. Consequently, the decision was made to construct social housing to concentrate these individuals in one place. This move created a barrier between immigrants and mainstream French society, plunging second-generation immigrants into marginalization and alienation. With their parents clinging to ties to their countries of origin, members of this new generation had no homeland to which they could truly belong other than France. Later generations of immigrants sought equality with their French counterparts, but the states efforts to improve the suburbs, however commendable, were not sufficient, particularly in terms of economic policy. As the 1990s marked the end of the Cold War, resurgent populist right-wing parties ushered in a new era of the nation-state. Consequently, the citizenship state that had emerged from the ashes of World War II began to gradually decline. Even greater identity, economic, and social crises increased populist support, culminating in right-wing groups coming to power in Italy and Austria. This right-wing ideology has even been adopted by traditional parties, such as the Conservative Party in Britain, leading to Boris Johnsons rise to power with his populism-driven rhetoric that enabled the adoption of Brexit, with all its negative consequences for Britons. Now in France, the situation has not changed. Since the beginning of the 21st century, the far-right has become essential in the French presidential elections. What is even more concerning is the fact that traditional parties have begun being influenced by this same far-right extremism, as long as it holds appeal in electoral contests. This has subsequently led to a normalization of xenophobic and racist discourse, as numerous politicians and public figures have attempted to establish their presence by exhibiting increasingly extreme views. ric Zemmours participation in the most recent presidential election is perhaps the most glaring example of this growing symbiotic relationship. Hate speech has found outlets in the media, creating a barrier between a significant section of foreign-origin French society and the populist right. Worst of all, these sentiments have seeped into security services, resulting in tension and distrust between youth in the suburbs and security services personnel. This pressure has been intensifying every day and reached new heights with the killing of the 17-year-old boy Nahel Merzouk, which has sparked riots in cities across France as well as the town of Nanterre to the west of Paris where he grew up. The extreme right is on the rise in France, transforming the state and society to an alarming degree. This transformation is coming at the expense of immigrantsa price that is too heavy for them to bear. Rami Al-Khalifa Al-Ali (translated by Asaf Zilberfarb)

Continue reading here:

The French Far-Right Tsunami Is Coming - The Media Line

This sudden uptick of support for far-right parties is happening all over Europe. In Germany, the Alternative fr Deutschland (AfD) is surging. It scored 22% in a recent national opinion poll and 34% in the region of Thuringia, where, for the first time, its candidate won a district mayoral election in June. In Austria, meanwhile, the Freedom Party (FP) is consistently polling above both the centre left and centre-right parties, at around 30%.

In France, where riots that centred on poor, ethnic minority communities shook Emanuel Macrons presidency last month, the political winner has been Rassemblement Nationale (RN). Its leader, Marine Le Pen who called for a crackdown on the protests has approval ratings on 39% compared to President Macrons 33%.

In the Flanders region of Belgium, the Vlaams Belang a far-right separatist party with a fascist past is on 22%. In Portugal, Chega, another openly racist far-right party, has doubled its 2022 election score to poll 12% and 14% for most of this year. In Greece no fewer than three far-right parties entered parliament in the June general election with a combined score of 12%, the largest of them overtly aligned to a jailed neo-Nazi former MP.

Meanwhile, in Sweden, Finland, Hungary, Poland and Italy, right-wing populist parties are already firmly ensconced in government. The price democracies pay for that was shown in Finland last week when deputy prime minister Riikka Purra, who leads the far-right Finns Party, was revealed to have bragged: If they gave me a gun, thered be bodies on a commuter train, referring to an incident with migrants. Her defence was that it happened in 2008 and that unlike her fellow minister she had not made any public jokes using the phrase Heil Hitler (the Hitler guy resigned).

Joe Mulhall, director of research at Hope Not Hate says: There are a series of elections due over the next five years where, apart from Germany, all the major countries in continental Europe could either end up with far-right governments or a far-right party a ruling coalition. When Austrian far-right leader Jrg Haider was elected in the 1990s, or when Le Pen did well in 2012, there were demonstrations everywhere and conniptions across the global media. Today theres just a sense of relief that they havent won.

Whats driving this new surge of right-wing populism? First, the cost-of-living crisis triggered by the war in Ukraine, which has plunged the euro area into an inflationary recession. Though the negative GDP numbers were slight minus 0.1% GDP growth for Q4/2022 and Q1/2023 the inflation figures were big: 6.1% across the Eurozone, with Latvia, Slovakia, Poland and Czechia all on 12% and Hungary on 21%.

Theres an increasing sense, for people across the continent, that the status quo isnt working, says Mulhall, and whenever we get into one of those crunch points, with economically deprived communities that are already susceptible to far-right politics, people turn round and ask, electorally: Why not look elsewhere?.

Florian Ranft, of Das Progressive Zentrum, a centre-left German thinktank, says this is particularly true of the AfDs surge in Eastern Germany. In Sonneberg, a picture-postcard town close to the Czech border, Ranft tells, me, the AfDs winning candidate only campaigned on national issues. They had thousands of posters about closing the borders, or ending the war in Ukraine, which had nothing to do with local politics. Its a protest vote.

The second factor, experts believe, is the unique situation of a rise in trans-Mediterranean refugee traffic, alongside the arrival four million refugees from Ukraine. Youre getting the idea of the deserving and undeserving refugee, says Mulhall: There are white Christians from Ukraine and then people who the far-right stigmatise as single male economic migrants of fighting age: all the primary narratives across the European far right concern the idea there are non-white people coming over to invade us and change us demographically.

But underlying these trigger factors is the deeper demographic divergence between the life experience of young, educated, skilled and urban people and those in older, ex-industrial small towns. Paul Hilder, CEO of Datapraxis, a strategic advice and research company working with progressive parties across Europe, says:

As worldviews and experiences diverge, and the system is increasingly seen as failing to deliver consistently for people, issues such as immigration and crime function as common vectors of alienation. Wherever we poll in Europe, there is either large minority or majority support for the position that all immigration, legal or illegal, should be stopped.

The cost-of-living crisis, says Hilder, has made voters go in search of immediate change and practical answers: Where the populist right are winning they often seem to attract swing voters who are experiencing insecurity in their daily lives and want something better for themselves and their families. These voters are often losing faith in mainstream politics, wanting change, and looking for any port in a storm and they will vote despite the extremist ideology of the far-right parties, not because of it.

Hilders polling shows that in France, Sweden and Italy, twice as many voters switched to far-right parties because they hoped they would change things rather than because they thought such parties have the best policies.

Another factor boosting the far-right vote is the mainstreaming of its ideology via social media, which increasingly forces the mainstream media to give it a platform. Weve had an object lesson in this process with GB News and the National Conservatives conference in the UK with one feeding off the other to legitimise anti-trans, anti-drag and white victimhood ideas. But elsewhere in Europe, the process is on steroids.

Paulina Frhlich, who heads the democratic resilience programme at Das Progressive Zentrum, says: The AfD has more than three times as many Facebook followers as the ruling SPD. They understand social media and use it to good effect. For example, they deliver their speeches in the Bundestag in a YouTube-friendly way. Within a few minutes, the video is edited and uploaded. The speech was not addressed to the colleagues in parliament, but to the partys followers beyond.

Experts believe the AfD does not need the traditional media any more because it has built up its own mass media online, where it doesnt have to deal with context or critical questions from journalists. Without social media, the AfD would not even be in parliament.

A signal moment in the evolution of the European far right came with the de facto inclusion of the Sweden Democrats in a conservative-liberal coalition last October. Though they did not get any ministers from the deal, the SDs who have well-documented origins in neo-Nazism co-signed the coalition agreement, which calls for a crackdown on gang crime, the reduction of immigration to a legal minimum and a demanding programme of cultural integration.

There was no need for Swedens mainstream parties to admit the Sweden Democrats: they could have sought to govern as a minority, or in coalition with the Social Democrats. So it was a conscious, strategic choice and gave permission for the direct absorption of the Finns Party into the government in Helsinki this year, whose neo-Nazi gaffes have now triggered a political crisis. Few doubt that, if the PP and VOX can form a majority government in Madrid after next Sunday, they will.

The underlying problem is that the ide fixe of modern fascist ideology the Great Replacement Theory has begun to structure the thinking of both the populist and the conservative right. The idea that Muslim invaders are coming to enact white genocide against the population of Europe, encouraged by an army of human rights lawyers, feminists and drag queens is of course ludicrous; but its an order of magnitude more dangerous than the routine racial prejudice of the 1970s and 80s.

Because its practical conclusions are alarming. First, it has begun to frame all politics to the right of traditional conservatism around the myth of a coming inter-ethnic conflict. Second, it elevates misogyny and anti-LBTQ+ prejudices to the same status as racism within far-right folklore opening up recruitment pathways for young men. Third, it swirls through, and collides with, an amorphous cloud of online conspiracy theories. Fourth, it maps more effectively on to the widespread anti-systemic sentiment among voters.

So, for the French far right, the recent uprisings by minority ethnic communities in response to the police murder of an unarmed teenager are no longer simply cited as a justification for ending migration or tougher policing: they are framed as a rehearsal for Day X when liberal democracy erupts into a global inter-ethnic civil war.

And the critical forums where the text of far-right populism gets mixed with the subtext of outright fascism are online, says Hope Not Hates Mullhall:

Alongside the far-right parties you have a miasma of post-organisational far-right networks involving thousands of individuals operating across national boundaries. These networks are like synapses, that allow information, ideas, rhetoric, tactics to move around the internet, creating memes and content and pushing it towards wherever the next target is.

Everybody I spoke to about the far-right surge pointed to the paralysis of liberal, green and social-democratic parties in the face of it. Mulhall warns that sudden, local radicalisations, which grab the attention of party strategists weeks before elections, are often the produce of decades of local work by far-right activists. The Spanish left and centre left, meanwhile, had to scramble together messaging for the snap election they triggered, in the case of the radical left producing a whole new party, slogans and programme.

Paul Hilder of Datapraxis offers a handful of to-dos for parties of the progressive mainstream in the face of the right-wing populist surge.

Meet voters where they are, which is struggling with inflation in their daily lives; make bold, practical and credible offers on these issues. When it comes to drawing a contrast with the right wing populists, its not about calling them fascists or Putin backers its about connecting their extremism to life getting worse and not better. Progressives need to attract a diverse electorate, ranging from those who agree with them on social issues to those who dont. Finally, its about execution: making sure that clear, effective messages are reaching the right people.

Does this mean we should stay away from woke politics, I ask? Hilder, who has worked with some of the most progressive politicians across Europe and the Americas, does not mince his words.

Many marginal voters take the position that ordinary peoples daily lives are more important than social or ethnic minorities. That doesnt mean being anti-woke. If your disposable income has dropped by 10 or 20% in the past year, thats what you want politicians to be focusing on, rather than how many genders there are.

In the run-up to Sundays vote, the Spanish socialist party has been laser focused on the cost of living, campaigning on its record of getting inflation down to 1.9% by using price controls while in government. We will see whether that cuts through the tsunami of hate coming from the right.

See the rest here:

Can Spain hold back the right? - The New European

Around the world emerging new exclusionary politics are generating deepening inequalities, jobless growth, climate chaos, and social division. These processes have been intensified or exposed in many places by the Covid-19 pandemic and responses to it, but they are not new. Since 2017 the Emancipatory Rural Politics Initiative (ERPI) has used engaged research to better understand these destructive dynamics, and the social and political processes in rural spaces that are generating alternatives to them. We aim to provoke debate and action among scholars, activists, practitioners and policymakers from across the world who are concerned about the current situation, and hopeful about alternatives and resistances.

Today, these questions remain urgent, worldwide. Yet organised movements and actions in and from rural areas have contributed to changing the political trajectories in many countries: the (qualified) success of the Indian farmers' protests; the electoral victories of left-wing parties in Chile, Peru and other countries in Latin America; the repositioning of the Workers Party in Brazil and more. Other tensions and dynamics are playing out in many other countries: from Turkey to Tunisia, Mozambique to the United States of America. In some places regressive populism has turned into outright authoritarianism, as in Myanmar. How do we make sense of all these changes and continuities?

Engaged researchers have published timely collections on these issues: (a) Routledge book 'Authoritarianism and the Rural World' with 20 chapters and edited by Ian Scoones, Saturnino M. Borras Jr., Marc Edelman, Ruth Hall, Lyda Fernanda Forero, Ben White and Wendy Wolford (Open Access ebook); (b) Special Issue of Sociologia Ruralis onauthoritarian populism in Europeedited by Natalia Mamonova, Jaume Franquesa and Sally Brooks; (c) Special Issue ofJournal of Rural Studieson North America edited by Antonio Roman-Alcala, Garrett Lovelace-Graddy and Marc Edelman; (d) aspecial forum ofLatin American Perspectivesedited by Daniela Andrade and Sergio Coronado and e)A View From The Countryside, co-published by TNI, FIAN, and ERPI by Katie Sandwell, Anglica Castaeda Flores, Lyda Fernanda Forero, Jennifer Franco, Sofia Monsalve Surez, Andrea Nuila and Philip Seufert.

This edition of the Agrarian Conversations Webinar Series will showcase these relevant and urgent publications, discuss recent events, and assess the progress of struggles in and from the rural areas in relation to right-wing populism.

Speakers:

Moderators:Ruth Hall(PLAAS) andKatie Sandwell(TNI)

Background reading: Preface of Authoritarian Populism and the Rural World, pages xv-xxi,https://library.oapen.org/handle/20.500.12657/49632Languages: English, Spanish, French

View original post here:

Populism, authoritarianism and agrarian struggles - Transnational Institute

And now, like then, its not a story limited to the American side of the Atlantic.

Im writing from Europe, which is clarifying in ways that Ill get to, but lets start with the U.S. And specifically, the Republican Party.

Ill stipulate up front that the GOPs Trump skeptics have no easy task. As made plain in the NBC poll last weekend, half the party remains in the grip of a personality cult. What else to conclude from a survey that shows a narrow majority of Republican voters support a candidate just indicted on 37 felony counts? Even more arresting, 77 percent of GOP primary voters surveyed said the charges were either no cause for concern or only bothered them slightly.

Thats the marketplace Republican officials are working with. As many a former GOP lawmaker happily emancipated from a primary ballot will tell you, they dont have a Trump problem, they have a voter problem.

When I asked one House Republican lawmaker who endorsed Trump if not supporting him had been an option, this member said matter-of-factly: Hes going to win and hes hugely popular in my district.

Sums it up, doesnt it?

A politician taking the path of least resistance isnt exactly news. And like I said, its not easy when so many of your voters are radicalized.

But the pre-Trump wing of the party is scarcely trying or they are doing so in ways that only point to the difficulty traditional center-right parties are having in this moment.

Lets start, where else, with House Republicans.

Speaker Kevin McCarthys response to Trump inviting three-dozen felonies? No, not an opening to break with someone who could be staring at prison time as the partys nominee. McCarthy took it as an opportunity to impeach Attorney General Merrick Garland.

Yes, I know the stated move on Garland stems from Hunter Bidens misdemeanor-and-diversion arrangement. But the decision to target Garland and the Department of Justice, rather than seize the chance to at least start moving away from Trump, tells you everything about how captive McCarthy is to his Trumpian base in the House GOP conference. As is his willingness to even entertain expunging Trumps impeachments, whatever that means.

Its not like McCarthy isnt conscious of the risk Republicans bear in remaining handcuffed to Trump. Look no further than his own comments on CNBC Tuesday when, as hes given to doing, he blurted out a Kinsley gaffe.

Can he win that election? McCarthy said. Yeah he can the question is, is he the strongest to win the election, I dont know that answer. (A few hours later, unsurprisingly, McCarthy fled to a safe space, Breitbart, to clean up his comments and testify to Trumps strength in the general election.)

While House Republicans weigh impeaching the attorney general and relitigating the former presidents impeachments, many Senate Republicans are sticking with their long-running strategy: wishing Trump would go away.

Their posture reminds me of the William Faulkner line from Intruder in the Dust, the one about how Southern boys are forever fantasizing its not yet 2 p.m. at Gettysburg in 1863, and the Confederates have yet to be repelled. For more than a few Senate Republicans, its still June of 2015 and Trump has yet to come down that Manhattan elevator to take over their party. Or that, any day now, the party will revert to its pre-Trump identity.

Republican Leader Mitch McConnell no more wants to spend his golden years on Marthas Vineyard than to see Trump as the Republican nominee in 2024. Yet McConnell didnt even try to round up the votes for Trumps impeachment conviction in the aftermath of Jan. 6, in hindsight the best chance the party had to be rid of Trump, and now he says nothing as the former president is charged with damning crimes.

McConnell may be betting, as he alluded to in his withering speech following Trumps acquittal, that the criminal justice system will ultimately rid him of this meddlesome hotel developer.

But thats the point. Its forever somebody else or some other intervention that will finally break the party from its Trump spell. It was going to be his 2020 defeat, then it would surely be his conduct in the aftermath of the election and, okay this is really it, it had to be his role propelling lackluster candidates in last years midterms.

As ineffectual as the traditional Republicans in Congress have been in confronting Trumpism, the 2024 field has demonstrated why, at least precarceral, Trumps hold on the GOP remains so firm.

The non-Trump Republican field today is a picture of the partys fragmentation. Its a mix of born-again Never Trumpers, those vowing to oppose him in the general election; Maybe Trumpers, those who would in fact like to beat him but dont want to imperil their future viability within the system; and those clearly open for business with Trump, whether to secure a future appointment or because the wait is shorter to run again in 2028.

This composition, its worth noting, largely reflects the non-Trump Republican electorate, a mix of voters appalled by him and desperate to move on, those who liked the policies (ask any reporter how many times you hear that verbatim) but want a different nominee and those who still like Trump and may come around to him but for now are intrigued by others.

This split is on course to play out in Iowa, where a conservative and more establishment-friendly electorate could split the non-Trump vote, and in New Hampshire, where any Trump alternative from Iowa will see their vote carved into by Chris Christie or whoever emerges to win over independents and anti-Trump Republicans.

The public presentation of the candidates also reflects this array. Take Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, whos most clearly targeting those voters still enamored with Trump or at least his scent. Theres the affect, each sentence, to paraphrase President Joe Biden, being a noun, a verb and woke. And theres the substance, most recently his offensive against the immigration invasion, promise to use U.S. military assets as needed to curb the flow of fentanyl and opposition to birthright citizenship.

DeSantis isnt trying to break the party from Trumpism, hes accommodating it and in fact offering to prosecute a more efficient version. I get it. Its a reflection of where many Republicans are in 2023 and also happens to be authentic to who DeSantis is.

There are two obvious challenges for him, though. First, its exceedingly difficult to out-bid Trump on policy provocation because, well, hes Donald Trump. See his 2015 proposal to bar Muslims from migrating to the U.S., which horrified GOP elites but, revealingly, was fairly popular with their voters. Hell see your drug interdiction proposal and raise you an electrified border wall.

Ron DeSantis isnt trying to break the party from Trumpism, hes accommodating it and in fact offering to prosecute a more efficient version. | Josh Reynolds/AP Photo

More worrisome for DeSantis and the other aspirants is that Trumps appeal is more primal than policy, that, like former U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson, he has a demagogues grasp on the electoral id.

Which brings me to Europe.

The rise of right-wing populism here owed much the same to what it did in America. It was oriented around identity, be it national, racial or sexual. Yet it sprouted as much because the traditional center-right parties were divided over whether, or how, to confront or co-opt the movement. And, much like the Republicans, theyre still not quite sure how to proceed.

Take the Germans. The CDU, the countrys traditional center-right party, should be well-positioned to take advantage of dissatisfaction with Chancellor Olaf Scholzs ungainly, tripartite coalition government. However, its the far-right AFD thats climing in the polls, posting record highs in surveys. Why? In part because the CDU isnt quite sure how to present itself. Their journeyman leader, Friedrich Merz, has long struggled with whether to embrace the grievance-mongering of the AFD or returning more to the centrism of the partys longtime leader, Angela Merkel.

A neat illustration: Merz called Ukrainian refugees welfare tourists only to express regret over using the phrase. Predictably, as my colleagues in Berlin have reported, Merz is now facing the specter of a challenge internally from the leader of Germanys most populous state, Hendrik Wst, whos unambiguously calling for a return to Merkel moderation.

In the meantime, the AFD has latched onto the backlash over energy prices and regulations, adding another potent topic alongside its most galvanizing issue, migration.

We have a lack of leadership, we have a political class unqualified to tackle these major, complicated issues, this is everywhere the same, a long-serving CDU lawmaker told me. It more and more grows into a systemic crisis of our democracy. Speaking of his own party, the lawmaker added: We are equivalently weak as the government is.

Because of its history, Germanys political parties are, for now, still adhering to the continents old cordon sanitaire when it comes to the AFD, refusing to enter into a coalition with them.

In France, President Emmanuel Macron demonstrated how corroded traditional politics had become by marching to the presidency in 2017 via a new centrist party he hatched. Yet Macron has groomed no successor who can, like he increasingly has, appeal to the center-right and do what he did twice: fend off the National Fronts Marine Le Pen in a runoff.

Spain may be the most illustrative of this moment in Europe and the U.S. After suffering steep losses in a regional election in May, Spains socialist Prime Minister Pedro Snchez decided to call a snap election for this summer. But whether the more mainstream right party can form a government in Madrid may depend in part on its capacity to form a coalition with the far-right Vox Party.

After suffering steep losses in a regional election in May, Spains socialist Prime Minister, Pedro Snchez, decided to call a snap election for this summer. | Geert Vanden Wijngaert/AP Photo

Snchez knows this is and is betting the threat of Vox will prove sufficient to rally Spanish voters from far-left to center, as it did just enough for him to claim enough votes in 2019 to form his own coalition government on the left.

A weakened liberal government pinning its hopes on a narrow rejection, again, of a highly polarizing right-wing political brand? Yes, that sounds familiar.

Spain would hardly be alone among European countries relying on far-right parties to form conservative-leaning coalition governments.

Its a parliamentary concession of necessity that, of course, has no pure equivalent in the U.S. However, the GOP is, in its own way, just as reliant on the Trumpist ranks. Thats the inherent risk looming over any Republican split that they have no path to the presidency or congressional majorities if Trumps diehards dont vote. Because of their weakness in repelling Trump at the outset, Republicans are handcuffed to his supporters. Its not likely to end well.

And one only needs to glimpse at the U.K. for a window on what comes next for conservative parties in the wake of a demagogues departure. The British Tories no longer have the cult of personality but are being held accountable for Boris Johnsons chaotic reign and exit. Its the worst of both worlds. And it has Labour poised to reclaim 10 Downing Street next year sheerly by being the alternative to that.

Benjamin Johansen and Peter Wilke contributed to this column.

See the article here:

Mainstream Conservatives Are On The Run in Europe, Too - POLITICO

June 26, 2023 By Michael Weymouth

Recently a charter school principal in Tallahassee, Florida was forced toresign after several parents complained that a sixth-grade Renaissance arthistory lesson was pornographic. The issue, it seems, was a photo ofMichelangelos sculpture of David, which showed his genitals, a notuncommon feature in Renaissance art, which unashamedly glorified thehuman body. The larger-than-life statue of the young Bible character holdsa slingshot over his shoulder which he used to slay the giant Goliath. Mostsignificantly, the David was created at the beginning of the Renaissance, aperiod of enlightenment that set western civilization on a new course. Thesculpture symbolized the aspirations and hopes of that dawning era, nodoubt one of the lessons the art teacher wanted to impress on the sixth-graders. Unfortunately the presence of Davids penis was of greaterconcern to the offended parents.

This incident may seem a bit silly for most of us, but it is also an example ofthe perils of populism.

Historically populism was referred to as direct democracy, where thepeople had an unfiltered voice in running the government, versus affectingchange through elected representatives. For a government that purportedto be of, by and for the people, direct democracy would seem to makesense. But a great deal of thought was given to this subject at the foundingof our country. In an article in National Affairs, Madison and the Perils ofPopulism, George Thomas, the Wohlford Professor of American PoliticalInstitutions at Claremont McKenna College, wrote in 2016 about the rise inpopulism that led to the election of Donald Trump.https://nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/madison-and-the-perils-of-populism Thomas provides an extensive explanation as to why theFounders were opposed to populism, believing that elected political officialswere not merely to act as a mouthpiece of the citizenry, but to see furtherthan ordinary citizens: to refine and enlarge the public views, to have thewisdom to discern the true interest of their country, and to do so even if itmeant acting against popular views. Representative democracy waspreferable to direct democracy precisely because it was designed to placethose of superior political understanding and judgment in office.

Because the passions of the people could be openly played upon, Madisonconcluded that it was often the case that a single orator would be seen torule with as complete a sway as if a scepter had been placed in his singlehand. No better example of this exists than Donald Trumps statementearly in his campaign, I alone can fix it, indicating that Donald Trump hadlittle understanding of how the democratic process worked, or perhaps justas significantly, how his supporters believed democracy worked.

Thomas wrote that Madison believed that we should guard against this typeof would-be demagogue who uses populisms lure to flatter the prejudicesof the people in order to gain power. Unfortunately, Donald Trump hasperfected this skill to a black art, and Florida governor Ron DeSantis is notfar behind, as he is presently carrying the populism banner from Florida tothe country at large.

DeSantis set the aforementioned Florida incident in motion by appealing topopulist concerns about wokeness, which among other thingsencouraged the banning of books school children had access to. If evenone parent complained about a books content, especially having to do withLGBTQ issues or critical race theory (CRT,) or other woke issues, that bookwould be banned. DeSantis claimed that parents should have a say in whattheir kids learned in school, even if their actions contradicted advice fromeducation professionals.

My conservative friends say, no big deal, this was just an isolated incidentin an attempt to downplay it. In fact, like the crack in the foundation of anew building that would one day lead to its downfall, the incident is anexample of what the country would be subjected to if populists are allowedto control our democracy. The polarization we are presently experiencing inour nation is a direct result of politicians giving voice to populist sentimentsand to the flood of misinformation that underpins those sentiments.

It is noteworthy that the block of marble the David was hewn from wasrejected by all the sculptors of the day because of its odd configuration.Only Michelangelo saw the sculpture within. What we need today arepoliticians who have that same vision of the possibilities within ourdemocracy. And it should not be lost on us that the Italians did not refer tothat period of history as the Renaissance, they used the term Svegliato,which translated means woke.

See the rest here:

Opinion: The Perils Of Populism - Hingham Anchor

As Donald Trumps star rises again even with multiple criminal indictments looming, many observers fear that anti-establishment populism in America is no longer just a flirtation, but a feature of our democratic system.

More generally, it has become common to think that democracies anywhere with their open public spheres, majoritarian institutions and propensity for a frustrating incrementalism have fueled the rise of populist leaders and demagogues. Examples of the success of strongmen leaders abound in Brazil, Hungary, India, Italy, Turkey, El Salvador and the United States.

But it is equally possible that the very attributes of democracy that have invigorated populism are also those that will ultimately moderate its spread. Democracies transparent public spheres expose populists corruption, and the separations of power in a democracy tend to hold populists responsible for failures of governance.

New evidence suggests that elections the hallmark of democracy itself may be an equally powerful check.

According to a new Ipsos poll of about 26,000 people across 28 countries worldwide, recent democratic elections are associated with a decline in the sentiment that the system is broken. Independently of who is elected, democratic processes themselves may provide a cathartic release of frustration and reassure people of their enduring power.

Between April 2021 and November 2022, there was a global decline of broken-system sentiment, roughly returning to levels last seen in 2016. The six countries with the steepest drop each conducted a national election resulting in major political change; none of the four countries showing an uptick in this sentiment had a national election during the same period.

Since 2021, there has been a 7% global drop in the perception that the economy is rigged, a 5% and 6% drop in the perception that politicians dont care and experts dont understand average people, respectively, and a 5% drop in the belief that the country needs a strong leader to take control back from the rich and powerful.

The global share of people who want a strong leader who is willing to break the rules remains effectively unchanged.

In Brazil, where the leftist former President Luis Ignacio Lula da Silva narrowly defeated the populist incumbent Jair Bolsonaro, 15% fewer people want a strong leader willing to break the rules. In Italy, which recently ushered a far-right government into power, the share of people who distrust experts and seek a strong leader both dropped by 19%.

Indeed, in all six countries showing the greatest drops in anti-establishment feelings Chile, Colombia, South Korea, Italy, Brazil and Peru the election brought in a new head of government from a different party than the incumbent.

The greatest gains in broken-system sentiment across the board are in the United Kingdom, where the Conservative Party has two more years before it must call a national election despite experiencing historically low public approval numbers.

On average, countries that conducted national elections dating back to 2016 saw a 1.4 percentage point global drop in the feeling that traditional parties and politicians dont care about people like them, while those without elections experienced a 0.8 percentage point global increase.

Still, while elections appear to be a salve, they are not a full remedy. In the short term, elections that replace those in government have a cathartic effect; they act as a pressure relief valve for public frustration. But fresh leaders do not necessarily mean a better or more responsive government.

Indeed, the populist wave is far from ebbing. The prevailing view among most people polled by Ipsos remains that their political and economic system is indeed broken.

On average, 64% feel their countrys economy is rigged to advantage the rich and powerful and 63% say that traditional parties and politicians dont care about people like them. This is fertile ground for populist leaders and parties in the future.

But we should also not expect broken-system sentiment to disappear. So long as populist parties and leaders are operating, they will persuade a share of voters that the system is rigged against them, even when there is ample evidence to the contrary a sort of feedback loop.

More profoundly, the polling reveals the intrinsic virtue of free and fair elections. Independent of who wins, elections mitigate the authoritarian tendencies and attitudes that lead ordinary citizens to turn against the political system.

The takeaway from this poll is clear. Policies that strengthen election institutions both here and abroad should be democracy advocates central focus. As for sitting governments? Deliver on your promises, or be replaced.

Clifford A. Young is the president of Ipsos Public Affairs, United States. Justin Gest is a professor at George Mason Universitys Schar School of Policy and Governance. This column was produced for Progressive Perspectives, a project of The Progressive magazine, and distributed by Tribune News Service.

Read more here:

In the global struggle with populism, elections are a salve - Frederick News Post

A Chinese proverb says, May you live in interesting times. Whether thats a curse or a blessing is up for grabs. Like it or not, Mr. Trump has certainly made things interesting. After his recent arrest, amid all the speculations and innuendos, here are several points I havent heard yet.

If you want it, here it is, come and get it, but youd better hurry cause its goin fast, Come & Get It, Badfinger by Paul McCartney

First, there is no comparison between Trumps Mar-a-Lago gaff and the actions of Pence, Biden, or even Clinton. Instead of cowboyn up, Trump went Watergate by lying and cover-up. Missing a play this obvious should concern inquiring minds as to Trumps abilities to make decisions under real pressure. Simply, he failed a test even a diminished Biden easily passed.

Second, Chris Christie pointed out that election results in 2018, 2020 and 2022 signaled Trump fatigue among voters. Election fraud is a debunked canard and voters widely rejected those claiming otherwise. If things remain as they are, a Trump vs. Biden rematch appears likely, and if, whats past is prologue, a Biden victory is imminent.

What? Not excited? While Biden was and remains, the best option since 2020, I have yet to meet anyone outside of MAGA-circles excited about either candidate. Another Trump vs. Biden race is, sadly, the best bad idea weve had by far.

Did I hear you say that there must be a catch? Will you walk away from a fool and his money?

Third, former Reagan speechwriter and Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan suggests a Trump Primary victory is the end of the Republican Party. Since 2016, independents and moderates have begun voting left of center. Noonan opines a third Trump campaign will solidify the divorce. America is best served by a healthy two-party system. If you think we have problems now, a multi-party system will be a real, here, hold my drink debacle.

Fourth, Trumps arrest is a golden parachute for Republicans. Instead of defending something so easily avoidable, Republican leadership should let the courts do the dirty work for them. By backing the judicial system, the GOP could elevate trust in our institutions of self-governance, side-step an obvious dumpster fire, and re-up their claim of being the law and justice party.

Regardless of party affiliation, if someone breaks the law, they should face the justice system. By allowing the courts to deal with Trump, Bidens viability as the guy who did and can beat Trump becomes challengeable, and, voil, both candidates are eased out of the race solving problems for both parties.

If you want it, here it is, come and get it, but youd better hurry cause its goin fast.

Finally, about every 100 years, Americans get to play whack-a-mole with populism. Our sixth president, Andrew Jackson served from 1829 to 1837, Nebraskas William Jennings Bryan, The Great Commoner was a national figure from 1896 to 1908, and Teddy Roosevelts Bull Moose Party (1912) and Ross Perot (1992 to 1996) lead us up to Trump (2016). By the mid-1990s, the Republican Party moved from Reagans conservative platform toward populism. Like the Democrats, along the way toward ideological purity, the GOP ejected moderates. Consequently, extremists in both parties have become more strident, intolerant and offering legislation less-representative of the majority of Americans.

As both parties demanded ideological loyalty, the bedrock of self-governance, civil debate, fell to the wayside and compromise became a dirty word. Healthy public discussions and political debates restrain extremism through the moderating effects of competing ideas, constructive dissent and respectful civil engagement. Paul Ryan, Jeff Flake, Liz Cheney, Scott Walker, Ben Sasse and Adam Kinzinger represented the future of the GOP. Alas, theyve left or were pushed out and, today, the GOPs presidential bench is discernably weak and the party is subject to the whims of, to quote Republican Sen. Mitt Romney, morons.

If theres been a silver lining, its been watching Congressman Don Bacons political evolution. Subjected to MAGA slings and arrows, Bacon was recently recognized for his cross-aisle overtures and participation in bipartisan groups such as Problems Solvers.

Former NYC mayoral candidate Ed Koch once said, If you agree with me on nine out of 12 issues, vote for me. If you agree with me on 12 out of 12 issues, see a psychiatrist. Many dont agree with Bacon on everything, but hes matured into an elected official who, even under stress or disagreement, demonstrates character and integrity.

And in these moments, there is hope.

Rick Galusha writes, "Like most things, stemming the Brain Drain asks individual Nebraskans to consider how their actions, words and values affect others and thereby the economy."

Rick Galusha writes, "Patriotism has always been complex.The global rise of right-wing political extremism coupled with the growth of religious conservativism suggests that many are, understandably, looking for stability in a world of constant change."

The Omaha Free Speech Society brings people together to discuss important political and social issues, we got to know our neighbors, practice verbalizing complex ideas, rebuild trust and share coffee and donuts.

The Omaha Free Speech Society brings people together to discuss important political and social issues, we got to know our neighbors, practice verbalizing complex ideas, rebuild trust and share coffee and donuts.

Community Columnist Rick Galusha writes, "When the nations founders met to write the U.S. Constitution, they cloaked the windows and forbade transcripts of the process so that participants could act and speak freely."

Community Columnist Rick Galusha writes, "We love our symbols and signs by sharing them on our cars, in our yards, and on social media. Why?"

Columnist Rick Galusha writes, "The voters have spoken: there are no victory laps this time."

Community columnist Rick Galusha writes, "As Nebraskas Second District knows, sometimes choosing the best candidates means crossing party lines ... Technically, this is called strategic voting but its just a practical approach."

Community Columnist Rick Galusha writes, "If the law is broken, regardless of party affiliation, officials need to be held accountable. But elected officials should be held to a higher standard of behavior."

Polling indicates voters are fed up with bickering and acrimony.

Occasionally, a reader suggests I am overly critical of Republicans. Its a reasonable criticism. Historically, political parties were monolit

"You gotta give the people what they want."

Columnist Rick Galusha writes: "At the heart of our model of self-governance are free speech and civic debate. I remind students their grandparents founded modern-day rights movements. It is through discussions that the language and norms develop for society to operate."

Columnist Rick Galusha writes, "While winning elections is the sole motivation of political parties, 'moving the goal posts' (or changing the rules) is monstrously unethical. Those who love this country and wish to see it continue shining freedoms beacon to the world can no longer sit by silently and allow this damaging subterfuge to continue."

Community columnist Rick Galusha writes: "Its time to weigh our own behavior while not turning a blind eye toward irresponsible actors."

Community Columnist Rick Galusha writes: "Are we defined by fear and anxiety, a $28 trillion monument to mismanagement, and manipulated societal division?"

"Take a bow for the new revolution."

We know empirically that when one strictly congregates with like-minded ideologues, they will increasingly spin further away from median voters views by becoming increasingly ideologically extreme in ideas and rhetoric.

Those who promote a known falsehood or stand by with a wink and a nod are actively dividing our nation and undermining our trust in the institutions that guide American democracy.

Federal spending and taxation demands hard, unpleasant, civil, public debate to determine national priorities. All of the above is no longer an option.

Our columnist believesNebraskas prairie populism is moderate, centrist and fed up with the growing hyperpartisanship of the last 30 years.

We need to remember those who died as well as those who served and those who suffered physical and mental injuries; these losses are personal, writes community columnist Rick Galusha.

Understandably, as groups stake their claim in the American dream, they want their journey, hardships and celebrations to be fully acknowledged.

All it took was a dry-land hurricane and just like that were helping neighbors and strangers. Helping others was the silver lining of Omahas recent windstorm, writes community columnist Rick Galusha.

'Those who imbibe in the toxic elixir of deceit are now finding each other and infecting society with a poison more subtle and dangerous than any virus or partisan activist.'

Its normal to be uncomfortable with change. Youre not alone. We all want a friendly smile, a kind word, affirmation and hope.

Unlike prior historical moments, this pandemics end will quietly creep into our lives as friends and coworkers sporadically get vaccinated.

The challenge of civics education is that one person's definition of "good" could be different than someone else's, which speaks to the importance of tolerance in our pluralistic nation.

History shows that democracies fail when political extremism abandons cooperation and compromise. During stressful times, democracies turn toward strongman leaders and right-wing authoritarianism.

Known as the principal agent problem, should elected officials be guided by their conscience or should they vote their districts preference?

This nation is facing a dark winter. We can choose to remain on a course of division and hyperpartisanship. Or we can look not to Washington, on stages or sports fields, but in the mirror.

From time to time, our nation and our community rely on moral leadership and common sense from its older members.

"To know Clare Duda is to know a laugh that explodes outward, filling the room, a smile that never fades, and the humble warmth of a man comfortable in his skin."

"If youve walked into a voting booth and thought, I dont like either of these candidates, you may be moderate. Dont worry, most voters are."

Rick Galusha, Ph.D., teaches political science at Bellevue University. Hes hosted a blues radio show for 30 years and was the president of Homers Music Stores. Galusha was active in the creation of the Old Market Business Association and served as the groups first president.

Get opinion pieces, letters and editorials sent directly to your inbox weekly!

Read the original:

Column: The push me-pull you of political populism - Omaha World-Herald