Mediaboss Marketing

Wherever you look in Western politics, it seems that the Right is in the ascendancy. This isnt confined to Trumpism and Brexit far-Right candidates are riding high in the polls, for example, ahead of elections in both France and the Netherlands.

These trends raise awkward questions for universities because, while they have long been bastions of liberal thinking, they have also presented themselves as being deeply rooted in their communities. What the past 12 months have revealed instead is a yawning divide between the views of higher education institutions and many of their neighbours.

So far, universities have largely been left to search for the answers to these questions by themselves. But now there are emerging signs that a newly emboldened Right might choose to confront head-on what its supporters perceive as bias against conservative researchers and students in the academy.

US education secretary Betsy DeVos call to conservative students to fight against the silencing of their free speech on campus, attempts in Iowa to achieve partisan balance when hiring professors, and a proposed investigation in the Netherlands into the limitation of diversity of perspectives in higher education could all be seen as the opening salvos in a new age of culture wars.

Universities might feel vulnerable in such a scenario. And it is important for a wide range of perspectives to be heard on campus, for it is only through debate that the apparent social isolation that higher education institutions are enduring can be bridged.

But this seems to be one topic where university leaders must be prepared to stand up and resist, because it is institutions autonomy that is central to their success, and to the discoveries that drive forward our economies and societies.

While the Right might be seizing the political prizes, universities should not feel too dislocated: Hillary Clinton won the popular vote in the US presidential election, and the 48 per cent who voted for the UK to stay in the European Union are only just in the minority.

These communities need a voice, too, and, with centrist and left-leaning political parties seemingly more divided and drifting than ever before, the case for academics to scrutinise populist politicians is stronger than ever before.

chris.havergal@tesglobal.com

Originally posted here:
If culture wars are coming, autonomy cannot be surrendered - Times Higher Education (THE)

As the culture war is about irreconcilable beliefs about God and man, right and wrong, good and evil, and is at root a religious war, it will be with us so long as men are free to act on their beliefs.

Yet, given the divisions among us, deeper and wider than ever, it is an open question as to how, and how long, we will endure as one people.

Your current subscription does not provide access to this content. Please click the button below to manage your account.

Thank you for reading and relying on TulsaWorld.com for your news and information. You have now viewed your allowance of free articles.

After World War II, our judicial dictatorship began a purge of public manifestations of the Christian nation that Harry Truman said we were.

In 2009, Barack Obama retorted, We do not consider ourselves to be a Christian nation. Secularism had been enthroned as our established religion, with only the most feeble of protests.

One can only imagine how Iranians or Afghans would deal with unelected judges moving to de-Islamicize their nations. Heads would roll, literally.

Which bring us to the first culture war skirmish of the Trump era. Taking sides with Attorney General Jeff Sessions against Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, the president rescinded the Obama directive that gave transgender students the right to use the bathroom of their choice in public schools. President Donald Trump sent the issue back to the states and locales to decide.

While treated by the media and left as the civil rights cause of our era, the bathroom debate calls to mind Marxs observation, History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce.

Can anyone seriously contend that whether a 14-year-old boy, who thinks he is a girl, gets to use the girls bathroom is a civil rights issue comparable to whether African-Americans get the right to vote?

There was vigorous dissent, from DeVos, to returning this issue to where it belongs, with state and local officials.

After yielding on the bathroom question, she put out a statement declaring that every school in America has a moral obligation to protect children from bullying, and directed her Office of Civil Rights to investigate all claims of bullying or harassment against those who are most vulnerable in our schools.

Now, bullying is bad behavior, and it may be horrible behavior. But when did a Republican Party that believes in states rights decide this was a responsibility of a bureaucracy Ronald Reagan promised but failed to shut down? When did the GOP become nanny-staters?

Bullying is something every kid in public, parochial or private school has witnessed by graduation. While unfortunate, it is part of growing up.

But what kind of society, what kind of people have we become when we start to rely on federal bureaucrats to stop big kids from harassing and beating up smaller or weaker kids?

While the bathroom debate is a skirmish in the culture war, Trumps solution send the issue back to the states and the people there to work it out may point the way to a truce assuming Americans still want a truce.

For Trumps solution is rooted in the principle of subsidiarity, first advanced in the 1891 encyclical Rerum Novarum by Pope Leo XIII that social problems are best resolved by the smallest unit of society with the ability to resolve them.

In brief, bullying is a problem for parents, teachers, principals to deal with, and local cops and the school district if it becomes widespread.

This idea is consistent with the Republican idea of federalism that the national government should undertake those duties securing the borders, fighting the nations wars, creating a continental road and rail system that states alone cannot do.

Indeed, the nationalization of decision-making, the imposition of one-size-fits-all solutions to social problems, the court orders emanating from the ideology of judges to which there is no appeal that is behind the culture wars that may yet bring an end to this experiment in democratic rule.

Those factors are also among the primary causes of the fever of secessionism that is spreading all across Europe, and is now visible here.

Consider California. Democrats hold every state office, both Senate seats, two-thirds of both houses of the state legislature, 3 in 4 of the congressional seats. Hillary Clinton beat Trump 2-to-1 in California, with her margin in excess of 4 million votes.

Suddenly, California knows exactly how Marine Le Pen feels. And as she wants to Let France Be France, and leave the EU, as Brits did with Brexit, a movement is afoot in California to secede from the United States and form a separate nation.

California seceding sounds like a cause that could bring San Francisco Democrats into a grand alliance with Breitbart.

A new federalism a devolution of power and resources away from Washington and back to states, cities, towns and citizens, to let them resolve their problems their own way and according to their own principles may be the price of retention of the American Union.

Let California be California; let red state America be red state America.

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of the new book The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority. To find out more about Patrick Buchanan and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators website at http://www.creators.com.

Originally posted here:
Patrick J. Buchanan: Is secession a solution to cultural war? - Tulsa World

Both Tesla and Chevrolet are trying to head up the electric vehicle market, with the Chevy offerings being more of an everyman's vehicle up to now and Tesla being more in the luxury department. However, with the upcoming Tesla model 3 aiming to be a more affordable EV for the masses, it's likely that both companies are going to butt heads sooner rather than later.

It's something that is apparent to many an automotive writer as mentioned over at forbes.com with them highlighting how a visit to a few Chevy dealers didn't offer that many Volt or Bolts for sale, which concluded that without a larger portion of their EV vehicles in the marketing department, they may not be able to shift as many vehicles and spread the word by the time the Tesla model 3 appears at the end of the year.

There is in comparison an increasing number of Tesla vehicles on the road along with plenty of the likes of the Toyota Prius. This means that moving forward GM will have to start shifting more units and doing far more promotion or Tesla will possibly catch up, or even bypass them in the next five years.

The odd thing is that GM do have a head start in the market as the Volt has won lots of praise and the Bolt appealing to a Japanese and German car buying public at present. It's not that they are not shifting units as they are clearly selling in the likes of Los Angeles and other eco conscious states. However, GM need to start to target a wider reach as plenty of their competitors are gearing up for their next generation of EV vehicles. With the likes of Hyundai providing a wide range of electric and hybrid vehicles, Toyota and BMW also producing midpriced offerings, the competition is soon to hot up in the midpriced arena.

Tesla are also planning to move a lot of their model 3s in 2018 and with a planned price tag of $35,000 compared to the Bolt's $37,000, means the more affluent eco-conscious may just plump for a Model 3 over its competitor.

Here is the original post:
Chevy Bolt And Tesla Model 3 Head For Culture Wars - Torque News

As the culture war is about irreconcilable beliefs about God and man, right and wrong, good and evil, and is at root a religious war, it will be with us so long as men are free to act on their beliefs.

Yet, given the divisions among us, deeper and wider than ever, it is an open question as to how, and how long, we will endure as one people.

After World War II, our judicial dictatorship began a purge of public manifestations of the "Christian nation" that Harry Truman said we were.

In 2009, Barack Obama retorted, "We do not consider ourselves to be a Christian nation." Secularism had been enthroned as our established religion, with only the most feeble of protests.

One can only imagine how Iranians or Afghans would deal with unelected judges moving to de-Islamicize their nations. Heads would roll, literally.

Which bring us to the first culture war skirmish of the Trump era.

Taking sides with Attorney General Jeff Sessions against Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, the president rescinded the Obama directive that gave transgender students the right to use the bathroom of their choice in public schools. President Donald Trump sent the issue back to the states and locales to decide.

While treated by the media and left as the civil rights cause of our era, the "bathroom debate" calls to mind Marx's observation, "History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce."

Can anyone seriously contend that whether a 14-year-old boy, who thinks he is a girl, gets to use the girls' bathroom is a civil rights issue comparable to whether African-Americans get the right to vote?

Remarkably, there was vigorous dissent, from DeVos, to returning this issue to where it belongs, with state and local officials.

After yielding on the bathroom question, she put out a statement declaring that every school in America has a "moral obligation" to protect children from bullying, and directed her Office of Civil Rights to investigate all claims of bullying or harassment "against those who are most vulnerable in our schools."

Now, bullying is bad behavior, and it may be horrible behavior.

But when did a Republican Party that believes in states rights decide this was a responsibility of a bureaucracy Ronald Reagan promised but failed to shut down? When did the GOP become nanny-staters?

Bullying is something every kid in public, parochial or private school has witnessed by graduation. While unfortunate, it is part of growing up.

But what kind of society, what kind of people have we become when we start to rely on federal bureaucrats to stop big kids from harassing and beating up smaller or weaker kids?

While the bathroom debate is a skirmish in the culture war, Trump's solution -- send the issue back to the states and the people there to work it out -- may point the way to a truce -- assuming Americans still want a truce.

For Trump's solution is rooted in the principle of subsidiarity, first advanced in the 1891 encyclical Rerum Novarum by Pope Leo XIII -- that social problems are best resolved by the smallest unit of society with the ability to resolve them.

In brief, bullying is a problem for parents, teachers, principals to deal with, and local cops and the school district if it becomes widespread.

This idea is consistent with the Republican idea of federalism -- that the national government should undertake those duties -- securing the borders, fighting the nation's wars, creating a continental road and rail system -- that states alone cannot do.

Indeed, the nationalization of decision-making, the imposition of one-size-fits-all solutions to social problems, the court orders emanating from the ideology of judges -- to which there is no appeal -- that is behind the culture wars that may yet bring an end to this experiment in democratic rule.

Those factors are also among the primary causes of the fever of secessionism that is spreading all across Europe, and is now visible here.

Consider California. Democrats hold every state office, both Senate seats, two-thirds of both houses of the state legislature, 3 in 4 of the congressional seats. Hillary Clinton beat Trump 2-to-1 in California, with her margin in excess of 4 million votes.

Suddenly, California knows exactly how Marine Le Pen feels.

And as she wants to "Let France Be France," and leave the EU, as Brits did with Brexit, a movement is afoot in California to secede from the United States and form a separate nation.

California seceding sounds like a cause that could bring San Francisco Democrats into a grand alliance with Breitbart.

A new federalism -- a devolution of power and resources away from Washington and back to states, cities, towns and citizens, to let them resolve their problems their own way and according to their own principles -- may be the price of retention of the American Union.

Let California be California; let red state America be red state America.

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of the new book "The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority."

Read more:
What is the solution to the culture war? - Daily Corinthian (subscription)

But this really doesnt hold up. As the Swedish author Johan Norberg argued, Trumpites attacks on Sweden are for the most part fake news. Even despite the increase in gang turf wars, which are partly down to the arrival of migrants who do not find gainful employment, the homicide rate is almost exactly what it was a decade ago, says Norberg. The number of Swedes suffering physical assault fell by 0.7 per cent over the past decade. And general offences against the person are at approximately the same level as they were in 2005 almost a decade before the surge of refugees, as Norberg points out. And there arent more rapes in Sweden than in any other European nation: its just that Sweden does more to encourage women to report all sexual assaults.

So Sweden isnt hell. Rather, the alt-right-promoted image of Sweden as the oh-so-European country brought low by a mass influx of Muslims, the fairest, happiest Western nation now made horrible by Islam, speaks to their wrongheaded obsession with the foreign origins of the Wests moral and cultural malaise. From Trump to Le Pen and some others who pose as guardians of Western people and ideals, the idea seems to be that the modern rot in the West, the difficulties and self-doubt the West now faces, came from without. The threat to our republics and our political gains of sexual equality and cultural pluralism is an external one, apparently. Its the crimes and barbarism of Them that dilute and which might even destroy our enlightened values.

This is mental and moral displacement, a cowardly projection of the Wests own disarray on to outsiders. In truth it is thanks to the cult of relativism and the surge in identity politics and the political and intellectual elites turning their backs on the fundamental founding values of the modern West liberty, democracy and tolerance that our societies have become confused and tetchy and even conflictual.

Even to the extent that the arrival of migrants raises issues today as it undoubtedly does that is also in large part a result of this process, of the Wests long drawn-out loss of principle and even of the moral plot. It is the Wests refusal, or inability, to say what it is for today, to elevate its own values over anybody elses, that gives a green light to some migrant communities to indulge backward, reactionary thinking; to cling to values and attitudes that dont work over here, and which in fact crash up against the Western way of life. Western societies that are incapable of defining or defending their core values, and which then invite over millions of people from societies that have divergent values, are certainly asking for trouble, and unwittingly storing up tension.

But if fear is the driver of too many on the right, the supposedly leftish, liberal side in the Culture War is propelled by something worse: ignorance; a self-imposed, borderline Orwellian ignorance of reality and of the difficulties Western society now faces.

Their response to the #SwedenIncident controversy was in effect to say, Sweden is fine. In response to the rights narrow and ill-backed-up focus on crime, they could whip out official crime stats and say: Actually, it isnt a rape capital, or a murder capital, so stop lying. Lets all go on holiday to Malmo, commentators chirped. That their ridicule and snark was interrupted by a migrant riot in Stockholm, on Monday, was darkly ironic, and very telling about the chattering classs unwillingness to address cultural tensions.

There are problems in Sweden. Some very serious problems. Unemployment among Swedes is four per cent, but among migrants in Sweden it is 22 per cent no developed country has a higher differential, as Fraser Nelson points out. This creates tension, and crime, and even riots, as we saw this week.

And the problems arent only economic; theyre cultural, too. Take Malmo, defended to the hilt by commentators this week. I love Malmo, said New Statesman columnist Laurie Penny. She might, but many Jews do not. Anti-Semitic incidents have trebled in Malmo in recent years. A chapel that serves Jews has been repeatedly desecrated. A local rabbi says he is regularly spat on and abused. The Jewish community centre was bombed. A few years ago, the Telegraph reported that more than 30 Jewish families had left the city; more have fled since then. Some of this is down to far-right elements, but much of it is a result of the intolerance towards Jews of the vast numbers of new Muslim migrants in Malmo. Should we not talk about this? Perhaps it is Islamophobic to talk about anti-Semitism? When Western observers and politicians say everything in Sweden is cool, do they know what this sounds like to Jews in Malmo or working-class Stockholmers who see riots outside their windows?

This Orwellian memory-holing of facts, this airbrushing of inconvenient reality, is possibly the most dangerous trend in the Culture Wars today. It reveals the extent to which Europes welcoming of millions of Middle Eastern migrants, done above the heads of the demos, was largely an act of elite virtue-signalling; an ill-considered, little-discussed initiative designed more to boost the moral standing of Angela Merkel and other EU and Western European leaders than to alleviate the suffering of Syrians and Afghanis or to address economic and political needs in Western nations themselves. So Sweden, with its thousands and thousands of unemployed Muslim arrivals, has in essence become a refugee camp, a holding place for people from faraway warzones. Is this wise? Should it have been more thoroughly and democratically discussed first? Can we discuss it now? Not if you dont want to be called racist, it seems.

The most important thing for the Western political and media class is the rush of virtue that saving Syrians and others provides them with, and reality cannot be allowed to dilute that rush. Their virtue trumps truth; their moral and emotional needs take precedence over rational discussion of the social and cultural issues raised by such an unprecedented influx of migrants. They end up in the perversely Big Brother situation of saying Everything is okay even as cars are being burnt outside and Jews lock their doors against abuse. And they wonder why some people are drawn to the likes of Trump and Le Pen. The more the so-called progressive side in the Culture War evades reality, hides in the memory hole, and substitutes mawkish displays of virtue for serious debate about the state of Western society and its values, the more people will turn to brash politicians who claim to speak the truth on such issues.

Brendan ONeill is editor of spiked.

For permission to republish spiked articles, please contact Viv Regan.

Continued here:
The Culture War over Sweden - Spiked