Mediaboss Marketing

WASHINGTON A top White House ally plans to paint Republicans focus on issues around race, gender and sexual identity as part of a GOP strategy to undermine public education as White House officials debate how forcefully to engage in the so-called culture wars dominating the right.

In remarks prepared for the National Press Club on Tuesday, American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten is expected to say state and local laws that ban certain types of books or restrict what can be taught in the classroom are fueling hostility and fear and arent serving students, parents or teachers, according to an advance copy of her speech provided to NBC News.

What started as fights over pandemic-era safety measures has morphed into fear mongering false claims that elementary and secondary schools are teaching critical race theory; disgusting, unfounded claims that teachers are grooming and indoctrinating students; and pronouncements that public schools push a 'woke' agenda, Weingarten will say. This is an organized and dangerous effort to undermine public schools.

Weingarten will lay out steps that would address issues like mental health, school safety and learning loss from the coronavirus pandemic but also call for others to more forcefully push back against culture wars.

Legislation passed or pending in states across the country is designed to create a climate of fear and intimidation to allow conservative activists to advance an agenda that includes shifting funds for education away from public schools, Weingarten will say.

Our public schools shouldnt be pawns for politicians ambitions, or defunded and destroyed by ideologues, she will say.

A senior White House official who spoke with Weingarten said her remarks focus primarily on education policy.

So far, the Biden administration has launched something of a scattershot response to the GOPs culture war campaign, largely calling out specific bills as they move forward or addressing them in passing at events with relevant communities.

At a Black History Month reception in late February, for instance, both President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris indirectly criticized Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis for rejecting a proposed Advanced Placement course about Black history for high school students.

Black history is American history, Harris said. And let us all be clear: We will not, as a nation, build a better future for America by trying to erase Americas past.

Biden said at the event: History matters.And Black history matters. I cant just choose to learn what we want to know.We learn what we should know.We have to learn everything: the good, the bad, the truth and who we are as a nation.Thats what great nations do.

The administration also hit back at DeSantis with an op-ed in the Tampa Bay Times this month by Education Secretary Miguel Cardona, who argued that classroom discussions about America are hampered when politicians try to hijack them to promote their own partisan agendas.

Ironically, some of the very politicians who claim to promote freedom are banning books and censoring what students can learn, Cardona wrote. Parents dont want politicians dictating what their children can learn, think and believe. Thats not how public education is supposed to work in a free country.

A White House official pointed to the op-ed as an example of how the White House plans to engage on the issue however intermittently until Biden fully leans into the debate.

At some point, Biden will weigh in more fully, but as of now the White House sees it as a 2024 conversation and doesnt believe he should be focused on it, the official said. We dont think this is the time, the official said.

Bidens wading into the debate could be seen as his going toe to toe with DeSantis, and the White Houses goal is for the president to appear above that. The official also said polling doesnt suggest it is an issue Biden should give much attention, given it shows Americans top concerns are inflation, health care and their personal economic circumstances.

Im not naive and underestimate the potential of wedge issues in certain races. But the average voter is just so much more wary of bulls--- issues, a Biden adviser said.

Biden last year twice explicitly referred to culture wars, once as he honored the Council of Chief State School Officers national and state teachers of the year and again in his prime-time address from Philadelphias Independence Hall, where he said the nation shouldnt focus on divisive culture wars or the politics of grievance, but on a future we can build together.

Officials say to expect Biden for now to continue to focus on topics like manufacturing and supply chains. On Tuesday, he is launching an administration-wide Investing in America tour at a stop in North Carolina.

Mike Memoli is an NBC News correspondent.

Carol E. Lee is an NBC News correspondent.

Go here to read the rest:
Biden ally to take on school culture wars as White House weighs broader response - NBC News

Drag bans like the one passed in Tennessee rely on fearmongering tropes about protecting children and traditional values.

Tennessee recentlypassed legislationthat bans drag from being performed in public spaces, as well as in the view of children. Although Tennessee is the first state to enact such a ban, it is unlikely to be the last, as others with conservative legislatures arecurrently considering similar action. Some states proposing bans haveexplicitly targeted Drag Story Hour, which involves drag performers reading books to children in public spaces, such as libraries.

So why does the American public suddenly need to be protected from drag?

The answer to this question has deep roots in modern U.S. history.

Tennessees ban on drag is not an isolated event. Rather, it is only the latest volley in the broader culture war between American conservatives and progressives to define the values of the country.

In 1991, sociologistJames Davison Hunteralerted Americans that the nation was in the midst of a perpetual culture war that would continue to have reverberations not only within public policy but within the lives of ordinary Americans everywhere.

Examples of early culture war battles include the 1925Scopes Monkey Trial, in which a Tennessee high school science teacher was prosecuted for violating anti-evolution laws, and the 1962Supreme Court rulingthat deemed school-sponsored prayer unconstitutional.

Culture war conflict came to a head in the 1980s and 1990s, with Senate hearings over the perceived dangers ofheavy metal musicand obscenity inrap music.

Social scientists largely thought theculture wars had recededat the turn of the 21st century. Then, former President Donald Trumps battle cry to Make America Great Again rallied troops back into action.

As Hunter noted in his monumental tome, culture war disputesusually intensify during times of upheaval, such as changes in the countrys demographics and shifts in the distribution of political power. These shifts lead people to wonder exactly whose values, languages, religions, and opportunities are respected or promoted by the government, law, and popular culture.

Not surprisingly, cultural conflict tends to emerge within institutions that have practical implications for Americans lives: family, public schools, popular media, public art, and law.

The first Drag Story Hourtook place in 2015. It was organized by author and queer activist Michelle Tea and the San Francisco-based literacy nonprofit RADAR Productions. Theofficial missionof Drag Story Hour is to celebrate reading through the glamorous art of drag and create diverse, accessible, and culturally-inclusive family programming where kids can express their authentic selves.

Because these performances take place in public spaces and in front of children, they hit upon a couple of important culture war triggers.

First, public performances can spark cultural conflict because they can signify exactly whose values are prioritized over others. Second, art and performances that reach audiences of children are often perceived as a threat to the family as an institution.

For example, in the 1980s, some activists and politicians viewed profane music as a threat to the family. This led to the introduction ofparental advisory labelsto identify music deemed inappropriate for children.

As social scientists who study gender and culture, we recentlyanalyzed reactions to Drag Story Hourthat were posted on social media forums.

In our analysis, we found that many grievances centered on institutions and values crucial to the culture wars.

We found that conservatives reminisced about a time when their values were dominant in American society and rehashed old culture war narratives about threatened children.

They specifically expressed nostalgia for a time when American culture was anchored by conservative values, and progressive views existed on the periphery of public life. As one forum member lamented, When I was a kid, the librarians were nice Christian ladies and there was an American flag outside. My current public library [has] scary levels of liberal posters and talks.

Some conservatives also used rhetoric reminiscent of the Satanic Panic of the 1980s and 1990s by claiming that drag performers were satanic pedophiles who sought to recruit, groom, and sexually abuse children. Others argued that parents who take their children to Drag Story Hour should be jailed or lose their parental rights.

In our view, its no accident that Tennessees ban on drag specifically targets drag performed in front of children.

Emphasizing threats to children is a well-established strategy for conveying the decline of American culture and values. As sociologists Joel Best and Kathleen Bogle have noted, adults oftenproject their anxieties and fearsconcerning a perceived disintegration of traditional norms onto younger generations, whom they believe need to be shielded.

In the 1970s, anti-gay activist Anita Bryant launched her Save Our Children campaign. Claiming that gays and lesbians were recruiting children to their cause,she successfully pressed voters to opposeanti-discrimination statutes.

And in the 1980s,fears over changing family structures, such as rising divorce rates and an influx of working mothers, fueled a moral panic thatday care staffers were ritualistically abusing children.

Almost half a century later, fears regarding advancements in LGBTQ+ rights haveproduced legislation restricting discussions of gender identityin schools and stoked claims that drag performers are satanists who terrorize children.

The deployment of these well-worn narratives is unlikely to end with legislation like Tennessees drag ban. Rather, it will continue as long as conservatives and progressives battle to define American values.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Sign up to receive email updates from YES!

Continued here:
Drag Bans Are Rooted in Conservative Culture Wars - YES! Magazine

Response

18:42

by Eric Kaufmann

Studies show a generational split on attitudes to culture war issues in the West. Credit: Getty

Conservatives are losing the culture war and its because they are being divisive, argues John Burn-Murdoch in an interesting FT piece today.

The underlying message seems to be that conservative parties should go with the radical progressive flow in order to woo the next generation of voters, even if that means ushering in a wholesale change to the culture that most voters dont want. This is a classic of the its inevitable, so submit progressive neoliberal genre, which is deeply misleading.

Already registered? Sign in

The problem with the argument begins with terminology. Counted as culture war issues are immigration and gay rights. But gay equality and marriage rights are old battles long won by liberals. Immigration is a live political issue, but reaches back to the late 80s in Europe and late 90s in Britain. This is not what is meant by culture war.

Instead, the term culture war refers to a new rift between cultural socialism, which pushes for equal outcomes and emotional safety for identity groups; and cultural liberalism, which cleaves to free speech, due process, equal treatment without regard to race, gender or sexuality, and objective truth.

A second set of objections are by posed another group, including but not limited to cultural conservatives, which wants to preserve and protect works of national heritage: statues of Winston Churchill or original names like Edinburghs Hume Tower. They dont want children being taught that white people or Britain are distinctively racist or that the British Empire is uniquely evil. They wish to defend literature such as the Greco-Roman canon or Roald Dahl from being bowdlerised. They seek to protect the traditional meaning of words like woman or the gendered syntax of languages like Spanish. These are but a few examples, but they illustrate the breadth of changes that have been taking place across the culture over the past decade.

Its also worth being clear about who started this culture war. While it is true that conservatives have played their part in deepening culture war divisions, it is the progressive Left who have been doing this kind of thing for far longer. Indeed, they have been promoting partisan ideas in schools and companies for decades. But when the Right resists this onslaught, be this at school board meetings or in national politics, thats considered to be a culture war.

Make no mistake, cultural socialism is unpopular, splitting the Left while uniting the Right. It is a perfect wedge issue for conservatives to go after and they would do well to raise the profile of these issues in electoral politics the way Ron DeSantis has done in Florida or Glenn Youngkin did in Virginia. Research has shown the balance of opinion between cultural socialist and cultural liberal views on a suite of 20 culture war questions. Overall, opinion leans about 2 to 1 against the cultural socialist position.

One area where the FT article is correct is that young people differ a lot from the old on cultural questions. This holds as much for culture war issues as for immigration. For instance, most under-35s favour a colour-conscious approach to race while the vast majority of over-50s prefer a colourblind position. As many under-25s think J.K. Rowling should be dropped by her publisher as support her but only 5% of over-50s back the authors cancellation.

This generational trend toward woke moral absolutism is a bad sign for liberalism. If conservatives do not address these issues, then they really will be consigned to the political wilderness.

More:
Don't blame conservatives for the culture wars - UnHerd

President Joe Biden issued his first veto on March 20, rebuking Republicans who had hoped to overturn a Biden-administration rule on environmental, social and corporate governance guidelines (E.S.G.). It allows retirement-plan managers to consider climate change in their investment decisions, reads a Wall Street Journal article.

Republicans lambasted Bidens regulation as part of a woke agenda that will hurt retirement savings and fund left-wing political causes. Meanwhile, Biden maintained that Republicans attempts at repealing the rule would risk [] retirement savings by making it illegal to consider risk factors MAGA House Republicans dont like.

This was just the latest volley in a back and forth culture war between Republicans and Democrats that continues playing out at the federal level and in the states, even including Georgia. But far too often, both sides are wrong, and prefer to rely on government force and sidestep their fiduciary responsibilities.

By way of background, the E.S.G. fight stands at the cross-section of money management and social and political ideology. Banks that adopt E.S.G. policies are more likely to eschew investing in/conducting business with certain companies that dont match their vision for the future.

This has resulted in large firms boycotting fossil fuel companies for instance, but E.S.G.-oriented policies can capture a host of other business models that particular banks see as problematic for whatever reason. This could even include companies like gun manufacturers.

Some say these policies are simply about promoting sustainability. Others call it activism. In truth, many on the political Left undoubtedly see E.S.G. as a backdoor way of promoting their values by starving certain companies of capital, and many on the Right see these efforts as threats and would like to put an end to them.

Red state after red state has introduced anti-E.S.G. legislation over the yearsforbidding state agencies or local governments from investing their state pension funds and public school endowments in companies engaged in certain E.S.G. policies. Several of these bills have even become law, but they risk hurting taxpayers.

By next year, roughly half of professionally managed assets will take E.S.G. into consideration, Deloitte predicts. This means states that have enacted anti-E.S.G. legislation will have grossly limited their optionsreducing competition for their portfolios and the return on taxpayer investments.

Texas led the way with its anti-E.S.G. law, which mandates state and local retirement funds divest from investment firms that boycott fossil fuels. Yet a study shows that it may cost the state upwards of $532 million per year in higher interest payments on municipal bonds, but its not just Texas. Other states that have enacted similar legislation are facing millions in increased costsdemonstrating that this is a bad deal for taxpayers.

As a general rule, I prefer the government stay out of most business decisions and companies to have a reduced footprint in the political realm. However, as private companies, it is their right to engage in political activism if they wish. I dont have to agree with their viewpoints or positionsand I often dontto support their liberty to influence public policy.

At the same time, state governments shouldnt feel compelled to invest with any particular company or fund. Thats their freedom too, but enacting laws eliminating many options for non-financial reasons is a ridiculous investment strategy. States have a fiduciary responsibility to obtain the best deal possible for taxpayers, and studies have shown that anti-E.S.G. policies are a financial drag.

Some of the Left falls into the E.S.G. trap too, but from the opposite perspective. If they want to only invest in pro-E.S.G. companies, like California often does, then they are also limiting their options and focusing less on possible returns on investment. Moreover, if they want the government to force private companies into adopting E.S.G. policies, then thats an inappropriate interposition into the private market, which will likely backfire. Governments arent known for making the best business decisions.

The E.S.G. debate has already begun in Georgia, but it stands in stark contrast with developments in Texas. Rep. John Carson, R-Marietta, introduced HB 481, which would define the state retirement systems goal as to provide the greatest possible long-term benefits to members of the retirement system by maximizing the total rate of return on investment within prudent limits of risk. In short, it would require the state to only invest only where it makes the most financial sense for Georgians.

To date, HB 481 hasnt moved in the General Assembly, and with Georgias legislative session winding down, it will have to wait until next year for serious consideration. If this issue comes up again, lawmakers ought to put culture wars aside and focus on the states fiduciary responsibility.

Marc Hyden is the director of state government affairs at the R Street Institute. You can follow him on Twitter at @marc_hyden.

Continue reading here:
Stop fighting culture wars about private investing decisions - Newnan Times-Herald

Thousands of counter-protesters see British anti-trans activist Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull abort her central Auckland rally. Video / NZ Herald

OPINION:

This weekend saw a showdown between two tribes of contemporary gender politics: those in favour of progressing transgender rights versus women wishing to defend their spaces. Its a debate with huge passion, outrage and consequences.

The figure at the centre of the clash was the British trans-exclusionary radical feminist Posie Parker, aka Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull, who attempted to hold a Let Women Speak rally at Albert Park in Auckland on Saturday. She was forced offstage by a counter-rally for trans rights and has fled back to the UK.

Saturdays clash of cultures is a sign of where politics is heading in New Zealand towards a fully-fledged culture war. This is something normally more associated with American politics but also increasingly in places like the UK.

There was an element of pantomime on both sides over the last week. Posie Parker thrives on controversy. She might be complaining now about her treatment in New Zealand, but by holding her rally in a public place like Albert Park she was provoking opposition and stoking tensions, hoping to become something of a martyr.

She won. She made global news, fuelling publicity in the UK and US markets where she carries out her main fundraising. She will now be even better equipped to push her particularly toxic form of gender politics.

Likewise, those opposing Parker were rather opportunistic in arguing that she is a fascist and that her beliefs were such a danger to the public that she had to be banned from the country.

They must have known they were giving the previously-unknown visitor huge amounts of free publicity and therefore helping get her views out to a wider audience. As broadcaster Heather du Plessis-Allan argued yesterday, Parkers opponents made sure that she was in the news most of the week, and They helped her spread her message. They played right into her hands.

The Greens represent one side of the polarised divide. MP Golriz Ghahraman tweeted on her way to the rally: So ready to fight Nazis. Co-leader and Government Minister Marama Davidson put out a video to say that she was so proud of the protesters. And obviously wearing her hat of Minister for Prevention of Family and Sexual Violence she used the event to declare that I know who causes violence in the world, and its white cis men.

The New Zealand Heralds Fran OSullivan wrote on Saturday that The culture wars are set to be a defining issue in the 2023 election. And she bemoans the Posie Parker tour dominating politics in a week in which the Treasury and the Reserve Bank confirmed that New Zealand will tip into a technical recession this year.

According to OSullivan, the rainbow community leaders went into overdrive producing an illustration of how quickly a cultural issue can consume public discourse.

The implication is that the public is going into an election campaign in which there will be less debate and focus on addressing the cost of living crisis. And last week the Government released a major evaluation of their latest progress in eliminating child poverty which tragically showed that no real progress had been made. This vital issue was completely overshadowed by the Posie Parker visit, providing a warning of what type of issues might dominate the public sphere in the lead-up to the general election.

The two parliamentary parties stoking the culture wars are Act and the Greens. Those parties will gain a much higher profile if cultural issues keep rising to the fore. The Greens will pick up middle class supporters whose main focus is on social justice issues, while Act might be able to pick up more anti-woke working class supporters in provincial New Zealand.

Squeezed in the middle are the major parties of Labour and National, who are desperate to stay out of it all, aware that middle New Zealand is less enamoured by such debates and concerns. Labour, especially under new leader Chris Hipkins is trying to shuck off the woke association the party developed under Jacinda Ardern. Likewise, Christopher Luxon is trying to get rid of the reactionary image National sometimes had under Judith Collins.

On the outside is New Zealand First, with Winston Peters trying to get into the culture wars game. Hes positioned himself, along with Act, as being opposed to the woke elites focus on what he calls social engineering. Peters gave his State of the Nation speech on Friday in which he claimed: There is a full-scale attack being waged on New Zealanders culture, identity and sense of belonging. He complained that nowadays theres an awful tribalism in New Zealand politics.

Peters pushed all the buttons on the culture war issues claiming that the education system was the victim of virtue signalling tinkerers, and that government departments were more focused on relabelling themselves with Mori names than actually doing the mahi. Co-governance was also targeted as an elite agenda that would take away the one person, one vote Western tradition of democracy.

Theres a whole new terminology that needs unpacking and defining in the new landscape of culture wars. We have been through versions associated with the progressive side of this debate such as political correctness, cancel culture, identity politics, and now woke politics. To what extent these terms are useful continues to be debated. Perhaps the better term for the milieu of more middle class progressive demands is social justice politics.

Much of it is associated with leftwing politics but, in reality, the left is divided over culture wars. The cultural left side tends to be connected with more elite, educated, and middle class activists. The more traditional, or working class orientated old left, is still focused on economic inequality and improving the lot of those economically disadvantaged as a whole, with a focus on universalism and civil rights.

Even the term culture war needs some unpacking. New Zealand lawyer Thomas Cranmer provides the following useful definition: In essence, they are political conflicts that revolve around social and cultural issues, such as gender, race, sexuality, religion, and identity. The term was coined in the United States during the 1990s to describe the heated debates that were taking place between conservatives and progressives over issues like abortion, affirmative action, and gay rights. However, the scope of culture wars has since expanded to encompass a wide range of issues, from free speech and cancel culture to critical race theory and the role of the media in shaping public opinion.

According to Act Party deputy leader Brooke Van Velden, New Zealand risks becoming a divided society where cancel culture spirals out of control. Similarly, in the weekend James Shaw pointed to the Posie Parker controversy, and said Her arrival is the kind of risk that metastasises into broader political violence. He told Newsroom that Theres a real possibility we will see some form of political violence this year and someone will be injured, or worse.

Democracy might also be harmed if the culture wars dominate this years election. An ugly fight over transgender politics, co-governance, or race relations would be one that alienates many voters, and reduces participation in politics. Some of the public will turn away in disgust, confusion, or fear about culture wars. The intolerance and outrage that often occurs in these debates can make ordinary voters feel unwelcome taking part in discussion and debate, or even in voting.

This doesnt mean that the issues at the heart of culture wars are unimportant or should be suppressed. For example, there are vitally important issues and reforms that need to be progressed in terms of gender and transgender rights.

This is also a point made well by Thomas Cranmer: it is important to note that culture wars are not inherently bad. They can provide an opportunity for different groups to engage in meaningful dialogue and debate over important issues. They can also bring attention to marginalised communities and push for greater social justice and equity.

However, he points out that culture war debates often lack genuine, good-faith engagement: The problem arises when culture wars become polarised and divisive, with each side demonising the other and refusing to engage in productive dialogue. This is where New Zealand currently finds itself.

The main problem in culture wars arise when there is no room for nuanced discussion, openness or a willingness to learn from others and opponents. Overall, there is a need for healthier debate and engagement in New Zealand politics.

This is something political columnist Janet Wilson wrote about in the weekend, arguing that we have a declining culture of critical thinking and open-mindedness: That growing inability to think critically enables what Illinois University Ilana Redstone calls The Certainty Trap, that sense of self-righteousness that comes with having brutally judged, then condemned and dismissed, someone with whom we disagree. And when it comes to political debate, Redstone says The Certainty Trap holds us back and puts up walls.

We need to develop our skills, Wilson says, that includes being open-minded, having a respect for evidence and reason, being able to consider other viewpoints and perspectives, not being stuck in one position, as well as clarity and precision of thought.

Similarly, Thomas Cranmer argues that we will deal better with culture war issues when we foster a culture of humility and tolerance: all parties, regardless of their political affiliation, need to be willing to engage in constructive dialogue and debate over important issues. This also means that we need to be willing to listen to the perspectives and experiences of those who may hold different views from our own.

Leftwing activist and blogger Martyn Bradbury attended Saturdays rally and counter-rally and was appalled by both sides. He says: Right now the entire community need to actually step back and consider how the militant cancel culture element of the debate has alienated everyone else and created the environment where Posie Parker can thrive.

New Zealand is facing huge problems which require critical thinking and debate. We wont be well served if such political debate and the upcoming election are highjacked by the hate and tribal opportunism we saw over the weekend.

Visit link:
Political Roundup: Posie Parker and the ugly stoking of a culture war ... - New Zealand Herald