Mediaboss Marketing

A joke making the rounds since January describes social media dialogue thusly: Twitter is 90% someone imagining a guy, tricking themselves into believing that guy exists and then getting mad about it.

I dont know who wrote this tweet or the individuals qualifications. But for me the message captures something about the ills of drawing caricatures of our political opponents.

Democrats these days are critical race theory loving, woke Marxists determined to scramble all gender distinctions, transform the country by making election fraud easy, drive faith out of the public sphere and silence any voices that challenge their radical agenda through censorship by their allies in big tech and the media.

Republicans are obedient fascists who remain in the thrall of former President Donald Trump and are all too willing to trash democracy to institute minority rule and maintain white supremacy while picking on immigrants and transgender people along the way.

Portions of these characterizations probably feel true to you. But they are inherently dehumanizing, turning an opposing faction into irredeemable cartoon villains. Its easy to make up a guy we hate, project him on someone else and live comfortably in our moral superiority.

Most of us know people who, at the very least, complicate these narratives. Yet the culture war carries on with the assumption that opposing factions represent existential threats to our side. Its a sure-fire formula for commentators and politicians to command attention amid myriad distractions. But it also walls us off from the kind of give-and-take between factions that is often necessary to make progress.

The conflict over critical race theory, which unfolded in Manhattan-Ogden USD 383 earlier this summer, is one of the latest topics to heat up in the culture wars. (Photo by Luke Townsend)

If theres hope to be found, it could be in the shared value that many Republicans and Democrats still place in the idea of civics. Last year, Republican pollster Frank Luntz found that a majority of Americans in both parties rank civics in K-12 education as their top choice for how to strengthen the American identity.

Of course, as The Atlantics George Packer recently explained, thats pretty much where the agreement ends. The right opposes anything in K-12 public education that smacks of anti-American activism, while the left demands the elevation of historical interpretations different from Americas heroic founding narratives.

If I get the option, I choose a civics approach that deeply educates Americans of all ages about their rights and duties as citizens, along with cultivating respect for the structures and processes of democracy. Civics should also teach people to hold and test different interpretations and inculcate a mindset that Americans must be doers, because civics has never been a spectator sport.

If we take that approach, the culture war could be the place where civics begins anew, rather than ends. But it requires us to set aside the imaginary archenemy mindset in favor of one that elevates curiosity over certainty. It requires us to ask questions first, be willing to fight our own instincts by considering the most noble interpretations of views we detest, and to look for any threads of connection that might be able to sustain us through even the most wrenching of disagreements.

What makes civics as an ideal different from the culture war is the opportunity it creates for understanding to move those with whom we disagree closer to us while ideally being moved to new understandings ourselves.

The process of engaging in civics can be messy.

As great as this country is, American civics can also produce unsatisfying outcomes. Even unjust or sacrilegious ones. But winning over enough factions to move forward is also the only feasible way weve ever had as a nation to re-form a more perfect union where the common good and individual Americans might thrive in concert.

We cant abandon that hard road even now, because any path that allows us to give up on half the country leads to nowhere but a dead end.

A version of this article appears in the Summer 2021 issue of The Journal, a publication of the Kansas Leadership Center. To learn more about KLC, visit http://kansasleadershipcenter.org. Order your copy of the magazine at the KLC Store or subscribe to the print edition.

Sign up for email updates about The Journals content.

Go here to see the original:
Opinion: Curiosity key to tamping down the culture wars and renewing civics - The Journal at the Kansas Leadership Center

There is happy news, if you can hear it above the babble of social media and the self-interest of some politicians, who would make us hostages to madness. The culture war does not exist in Britain not yet. Some just seek to will it into being for their own ends or emotional imperative.

But Twitter is not life not yet and if we are lucky, it wont ever be. I spend too much time on the platform whatever else it does, it is first with news and sometimes it feels like my head will blow off and roll across the floor. That would be uncomfortable in life.

Yesterday a report was issued by the charity More in Common UK. It is called Dousing the Flames: How leaders can better navigate cultural change in 2020s Britain.

It has done what Twitter cannot. It has dug deep into the data and interviewed more than 10,000 British people in polling or in focus groups over 18 months. It paints a far more benevolent, and hopeful, portrait of this country than we are used to imagining when we read of statues and paintings torn down, or not torn down, and when we doom scroll through social media.

We do not, despite the pleadings of this false mirror, hate each other and we are not at poles. We are not America, which really does have a culture war, with its two opposing sides aligned on almost every issue, facing each other across an abyss, and with guns.

In Britain, we have only a perception of division for now; in 2020, after the Brexit chaos, half of those polled said they had never felt more divided.

But it is a perception because our fault line, rather, is between the highly engaged activists on the Right and Left who are immersed in culture wars and everyone else. Broadly, we divide into seven categories, not two, and there is agreement on a surprising number of issues between these seven. We are not an abyss, but something more interesting. We are a kaleidoscope.

I know that facts are not as fashionable as daydreams, but here they are. More in Common finds that there is broad agreement on many issues in British life. On history and heritage, we are not divided into people who would tear down offending statues (and I believe the Edward Colston statue was offensive: it was opposite the war memorial, it bathed in its goodness) and those who would keep them. That is a delusion, and it should be expunged, because it is frightening.

The majority would prefer offending statues in museums to be given proper context, which should satisfy all reasonable people. The lesson there is that the Colston statue should have been removed from the centre of Bristol long ago: political paralysis is dangerous, and opportunists will always fill the vacuum. The initials of Colstons company were branded on enslaved children. Does anyone, honestly, want to keep his image on a plinth opposite a war memorial?

This knowledge that we are mostly reasonable will amaze both sides in the would-be culture war, and so it makes me smile.

Britons are proud of how far we have already come in creating a more just society and are more progressive than you might think. Some 46 per cent support the broad aims of the Black Lives Matter movements, and in a country where Conservatives have an 80+ majority (35 per cent think it is a bad thing).

And 57 per cent think Gay Pride is a good thing, with 12 per cent against. (In 1987 the country was roundly homophobic, with 75 per cent of people believing same-sex relationships were wrong. In 2019, it was 17 per cent). For MeToo female emancipation it is 41 per cent good to 15 per cent bad.

The lesson from this data is that the country veers towards moderation. It doesnt, on the whole, seek racism, misogyny and homophobia. Those who say it always does, or it always doesnt, are equally dishonest, and equally to be shunned.

There is a problem though, which could animate culture wars from social media and into life: opportunists. Conflict sells. It isnt dull. I also know that speaking to a base even an invented base is comforting for a politician because who doesnt love applause? A culture war is a distraction from more serious problems. Have a problem you cant solve? Start a war. It neednt be a real war or, at least, not yet.

The biggest problem is not the divide, which does not functionally exist, but the way in which people feel shut out of the debate, for their inability their lack of desire to scream at each other on social media.

And most people are worried about the tone of the debate. Fearful of making mistakes (bigotry) or prompting an overreaction (cancelled) they opt out of politics and leave it to the nutters (not a technical term, I give you), and this is dangerous. The wise (responsible) politician will dig in with truth and those unbearable and unfashionable things: nuance and compassion. Its where the country is. So where are they?

But there is happy news at least. The culture wars are, for now at least, a hopeful myth; an understudy hoping to make it on the stage. Think of her as a screaming Tinkerbell. If you dont believe in her, she dies.

See the rest here:
Dont mention the culture wars they arent big here... yet - Telegraph.co.uk

Two weeks ago, I visited the fabled Alhambra palace in Granada. The complex is an architectural poem, literally. Arabic verses are carved on the walls of its profusion of rooms and corridors. Wandering amongst them evokes a burst of geometric ecstasy.

The Alhambra is also the embodiment of the extraordinary aesthetic and intellectual flowering that took place in Islamic Spain over a period of 700 years.

Between the 8th and 15th centuries, Muslims, Christians and Jews co-existed in the Iberian Peninsula often clashing, but also cooperating.

Muslim armies from North Africa first crossed into Spain in 711. The Moors, as these North African Muslims were called, quickly overwhelmed the Christian Visigoths, who had ruled the region since the fifth century.

Over time, the Moors established a series of powerful polities collectively known as al-Andalus. Of these, Granada the city where the Alhambra was constructed in the period between 1238 and 1358 was among the best known.

The Christians fought hard to reconquer the territories of al-Andalus. Much blood was spilled in the process. Yet, the centuries of Muslim rule were also marked by interfaith cultural melding.

Across the great cities of Spain, from Toledo to Cordoba, Christian, Jewish and Muslim scholars worked together, their heads bent over the Greek classics that they translated into Arabic, Latin and Hebrew.

In the 12th century, for example, an Italian-origin scholar and translator, Gerard of Cremona, worked with a Muslim colleague, Ghalib the Mozarab.

The collaborated on translating more than 80 works of astronomy, mathematics, medicine, philosophy, and logic, into Latin. It was one of the great revivals of scholarship in Europe, referred to sometimes, as the Twelfth-Century Renaissance.

In many ways, the Muslims and Christians of medieval Iberia were open to appropriating certain elements of each others culture, even as they faced off in battles for territorial control.

The parallels with India, where Hindus and Muslims lived in a similar state of simultaneous tension and embrace over the centuries, are evident.

In its minglings and marvels, the Alhambra is like the Taj Mahal, or the tomb of the Mughal emperor Humayun, in New Delhi.

It put me in mind also of Indonesia, an archipelagic cauldron of the Islamic, Hindu, Buddhist and animist.

A few years ago, for example, I watched the Ramayana, a Hindu epic, being performed by Muslims to the backdrop of Hindu-Buddhist temples in Yogyakarta, Indonesias cultural capital.

In fact, every country I have lived in has had a history of culture wars, but at the same time a history also, of cultural cross-fertilization.

Japans aesthetics come from China. The Chinese folding fan is originally Japanese. Both nations imported Buddhism from India, adding their own magic and lore to the philosophy in the centuries-long process.

Japans national sport is arguably the very American, baseball. And the latest Yokozuna (grand master) in the very Japanese world of sumo wrestling is the Mongolian, Terunofuji.

Some time ago, my husband and I met a Jewish itinerant on the streets of Istanbul in Turkey. He might have been a tad inebriated when he embraced Julio upon learning his nationality.

I am Spanish too, he told Julio in broken, archaic Spanish (a Judeo-Spanish argot called Ladino). He claimed his ancestors had been Spanish Jews.

I was embraced with similar tenderness a few months later in a smoky tavern in Madrid, when the Gypsy flamenco singer wed been listening too, learned that I was Indian. I am from India too, hed said, tapping his chest with an open palm.

Culture isnt static. It is like shot silk, changing colors in different light. It can slip through cracks, heedless of walls and borders.

The high priests of cultural warfare the inquisition/ the ayatollahs/the prophets have always been tempted by neatness. But as humans we are unruly. We strain to escape our straightjackets, to bend and entwine.

Great science, literature, food indeed great love exists on the intersections of, and in the crossings of policed boundaries.

Read the original post:
Contemplating Culture Wars: From the Alhambra to India - The Globalist

Jon Bloomfield and David Edgar analyse a historic victory for anti-racism but warn that the War on Woke isnt over and that new alliances are needed

The Conservatives culture wars strategy has suddenly come a cropper. They thought that they could cultivate the nationalist, racist element of their electoral coalition at no political cost. However, events have taken a different turn.

The global impact of the Black Lives Matter movement after the brutal murder of George Floyd, followed by footballers and athletes showing their solidarity by taking the knee, has produced a veritable explosion of bile and hatred from the national populist right whether on right-wing Twitter or with countless articles in Unherd, Spiked and the Spectator, all seamlessly seeping into the tabloid press and wider culture.

So, with the onset of Euro 2020 and the England football team declaring its intention to show its opposition to racism in sport, wider society and the media, the hard right thought that they had a juicy target. When some England fans attending a pre-tournament friendly in Middlesborough booed the team for kneeling before kick-off, the right sensed another culture war opportunity.

Before the tournament began, Conservative MPs voiced their opposition to taking the knee, with one backbencher saying that he would boycott all England games. Right on cue, the Home Secretary came out with a TV interview decrying the move as gesture politics. Through his press spokesperson, the Prime Minister refused to condemn those choosing to boo the team.

Yet, in the aftermath of the competition, it is clear that the strategy has backfired.

More fans chose to cheer and applaud the team when it took the knee at kick-off; many opposing teams showed solidarity by following suit; the multi-racial squad exceeded expectations in reaching the tournaments final; and when the team lost on penalties and the racist abuse of three players followed, there was an outcry with overwhelming support for them and an emblematic rallying of community outpouring in Manchester where a mural of one of the players, Marcus Rashford, had been defaced.

Suddenly, Conservative politicians were falling over themselves to praise the team and decry the racists. Even hard-bitten, ardent Brexiters such as former European Research Group chair, Steve Baker were warning fellow Conservative MPs of the dangers of being on the wrong side of history.

But why did this culture war ploy backfire and what are the wider lessons that progressives and liberals can learn?

Firstly, the England team followed the golden rule of campaigning politics: they focused on the core issue in this case that there is no room for racism in sport and that all players are equal and deserving of human dignity and respect.

That is what taking the knee symbolised. It was just one element of the wider story which UEFA and all the sponsors of the competition agreed to equality and respect. This was emphasised to the public, with television ads before the games on BT, Sky and the BBC proclaiming the importance of hope not hate. In contrast, for the hard right, taking the knee was part of their fantasy politics; a symbol of cultural Marxism, identitarianismand authoritarian extremism.

Secondly, England manager Gareth Southgate showed leadership. He could see what was coming so, to use rugby parlance, he got his retaliation in first. Three days before the tournament, he published his Dear England letter stating both his own pride in his country and that of the players under his command. In terms unimaginable from previous England managers, he wrote:

I have never believed that we should juststick to football.I know my voice carries weight, not because of who I am but because of the position that I hold. I have a responsibility to the wider community to use my voice, and so do the players. Its their duty to continue to interact with the public on matters such as equality, inclusivity and racial injustice, while using the power of their voices to help put debates on the table, raise awareness and educate.

Its clear to me that we are heading for a much more tolerant and understanding society, and I know our lads will be a big part of that.

Explicitly attacking those who choose to insult somebody for something as ridiculous as the colour of their skin Southgate went on, it might not feel like it at times, but its true. The awareness around inequality and the discussions on race has gone to a different level in the last 12 months alone with him implicitly acknowledging the role of Black Lives Matter.

The letter was greeted with great acclaim on the left yet, in reality, it was not that far from a statement of moderate, one-nation conservatism, if nonetheless welcome for that.

Here at last was a national figure able to speak for todays country and unreservedly welcoming its multi-racial character.Southgate set the terms and tone of the debate. He forced the nationalist right onto his turf: whats the matter with you, dont you recognise that were now a multi-racial country and arent you proud of the players who are representing our country? It was a letter to which they were unable to respond.

Thirdly, when things got tough after the loss of the final, the manager and players didnt fold. Jadon Sancho, Bukayo Saka and Marcus Rashford all stood their ground in measured statements. Rashford followed Southgate in writing an open letter, thanking fans for their support, and saying that he could take criticism of his football but no one would ever take away the fact that he is a 23-year black man from south Manchester. I will never apologise for who I am or where I come from, he said.

Fellow England player Tyrone Mings then pulled the grenade pin with a fierce denunciation of Priti Patel.

You dont get to stoke the fire at the beginning of the tournament by labelling our anti-racism message as Gesture Politics and then pretend to be disgusted when the very thing were campaigning against, happens, he responded when the Home Secretary condemned the racist abuse received by the players following the final.

This was hitting back straight and hard. And it got a public response. More than half a million people liked Mings tweet; Rashfords got more than a million. When the latters street mural in south Manchester was defaced, the local communities rallied with an outpouring of support. And suddenly Conservative MPs began a muffled retreat.

Its not all over. The Conservatives have created an unstable coalition that needs ongoing culture warfare to paper over the cracks. So theyll come again. Progressives need to focus on the core economic and social issues that scar our country. But, when the culture war issues do arise, Euro 2020 shows us three things: the importance of focusing on the core issue; the role of leadership in taking the initiative to set the terms of the debate; and the need to rebut hard.

As a result, Patel, Boris Johnson and their Government got their fingers burnt. Its going to have to happen again.

Byline Times is funded by its subscribers. Receive our monthly print edition and help to support fearless, independent journalism.

New to Byline Times? Find out more about us

A new type of newspaper independent, fearless, outside the system. Fund a better media.

Dont miss a story

Our leading investigations include Brexit, Empire & the culture war, Russian interference, Coronavirus, cronyism and far right radicalisation. We also introduce new voices of colour in Our Lives Matter.

Read this article:
Kicking Back: Why the Conservative 'Culture Wars' Backfired Byline Times - Byline Times

Sen. Dan Laughlin| Your Turn

The emerging spectacle of a state senator trying to audit Pennsylvanias 2020 election absent credible evidence of fraud, isnt going to change the 2020 outcome and will only further the paranoid atmospherics, poisoning both parties.

Im a Republican. I believe in my partys core values: personal liberty, free markets, and economic opportunity. Commonsense conservatism means resisting change for its own sake, avoiding disruption for momentary advantage, and refusing to politicize things that dont belong in politics.

Our view:: Editorial: Election 'investigation' is damaging partisan theater, spurn it

The current attempt to discredit the 2020 election results runs headlong into an unmistakable truth. While Donald Trump narrowly lost Pennsylvania, the same ballots secured Republican control of the state Senate and House, sent several incumbent Democrats packing, and did so amid record turnout and an expanded voting franchise.

For the first time in 60 years, Pennsylvanians elected Republicans to the post of state treasurer and auditor general and came within reach of ousting a Democratic attorney general. Thats not a sign of a stolen election.

More: Pa. decertifies Fulton County's voting system after third-party audit done for GOP

Donald Trump lost Pennsylvania because Donald Trump received fewer votes. Republicans won the state House and Senate because we had a better message.

What message will people take from someone trying to pry open voting machines and rummage through already counted ballots while employing statistical tricks to argue that the 2020 election was a fraud?

More: Fact check: Arizona early votes falsely cited as evidence of voter fraud

Consider the state a handful of my colleagues want to follow.

In Arizona, an outside vendor with a preconceived position was asked to audit the ballots and equipment. The only credible result has been an undermined public trust in democracy and acost of millions of dollars to taxpayers who must now replace voting machines that were decertified because a third-party had tinkered with them.

More: Sen. Doug Mastriano vows 'forensic investigation' of 2020 presidential election in Pa.

Americans are bone weary of the posturing by both parties that has made it almost impossible to pass sensible legislation to rebuild our economy, lift unnecessary restrictions on personal liberties, or even do something as obvious as setting a livable minimum wage. These arent Republican or Democrat issues. Theyre about what works for people.

More: State Sen. Dan Laughlin forms exploratory committee for possible gubernatorial bid

Thats what government used to do. Leaders like Hugh Scott, Bill Scranton, Tom Ridge and Pat Toomey understood that while politics is how we govern in a democracy, governing demands fair play and square dealing. That means putting aside the culture wars for the practical business of making certain the roads are paved, the schools are funded, and people have good jobs at wages that allow a life of dignity.

Our view: Editorial: There should be no such thing as the 'working poor,' raise Pa. minimum wage now

The Wolf administration, with its unique brand of cynicism, prefers to stall the kind of election reform that would instill confidence. They know that a so-called audit will discredit Republicans and raise funds for liberal candidates. Keep in mind, this is the administration that covered up tens of millions of dollars in overcharges against unemployed people and still wont explain why, five years after discovering this scandalous situation, they are still trying to keep it quiet.

More: In brief in Texas case, Laughlin says he's not claiming fraud but worried over Pa. action

More: Sen. Dan Laughlin: Court action designed to defend law

Do we really need another four years of this kind of governance? Republicans are going to find out if we dont start to focus on the things we do best lower taxes, economic growth and expanded personal freedoms.

If two sides want to fight over a year-old election, I advise them to take it outside. We have real work to do in the Capitol.

State Sen. Dan Laughlin, of Millcreek, R-49th Dist., represents a portion of Erie County.

Read more:
Guest Opinion: Its time for both sides to get real, and thats not with an audit - GoErie.com