Mediaboss Marketing

But it also highlighted a more profound parallel in the often synergistic US and UK politics that potentially poses longer-term threats to progressive parties: culturally and politically, they have lost touch with their heartland working-class voters -- the very people they were set up to represent.

The most significant warning for Democrats from Jeremy Corbyn's disaster may be that when a party gets consumed by its own ideological debate, it risks losing sight of subtle changes in its own base.

In the UK, as in the US, such constituencies had suffered economic blight for decades -- ironically, many from liberalizing economic reforms introduced by the Conservatives in the 1980s. As a result, they have harbored fierce resentment against upper class Tories from down south -- like Johnson.

But the Prime Minister, helped by his simple demands to honor the referendum to get the UK out of the European Union -- a goal many working class voters support and on which Labour has a muddled policy -- engineered a generational political shift.

Labour hotbeds have also been changing, a factor that seems to have escaped its ideologically radical left wing leaders in London. Some of those former industrialized areas have also started to regenerate. New industries are beginning to spring up in the place of mining and steel manufacturing that were driven out by globalization.

That has changed the demographics of some seats in Labour's red wall, and memories are fading of the great industrial strikes and battles against the Conservative governments of the 1980s.

Once, Labour was untouchable in the mill towns and mining villages of northern England and the shipyards of Scotland, piling up power through once-huge labor unions.

But it is seen increasingly as a socially liberal, metropolitan party that has moved on culturally from many of its more conservative working-class voters in the UK's rust belt. The power of unions is not what it was, and the urban liberal versus rural conservative divide is as important in UK politics as it is in America.

This has occurred as Trump has refashioned the GOP's country club image and worked to corral working-class voters disillusioned with conventional politics and economic policies that they believe left them behind.

It's ironic that it took a billionaire from Manhattan with his name splashed across his private jet and an Eton-educated toff to find a new political language to attract working class voters.

Did Corbyn go too far left?

The themes of the political post-mortem among progressives in Britain after Johnson's rout will be familiar to anyone following the Democratic presidential race.

Moderate candidates like Amy Klobuchar and Joe Biden are accusing their more radical rivals like Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders of adopting a perilous Corbyn playbook.

The former vice president leaped on the comparison at a fundraiser on Thursday night as the UK results rolled in.

"Boris Johnson is winning in a walk," Biden said, predicting headlines reading, "Look what happens when the Labour Party moves so, so far to the left. It comes up with ideas that are not able to be contained within a rational basis quickly."

"Jeremy Corbyn's catastrophic showing in the U.K. is a clear warning: We need a Democratic nominee who can defeat Donald Trump by running a campaign that appeals to Americans across our divides," Bloomberg wrote on Twitter Friday.

The Democratic primary has seen pitched debates over issues like expanding the federal government's role in health care and free college, and squabbles about how ideologically pure the party should be.

A similar debate has been going on for years since Corbyn took over the Labour Party. He reversed former multiple-election-winning Prime Minister Tony Blair's modernization project.

A cultural as well as political shift

There are often similarities between US and UK politics. After all, these are two great Western democracies that are prone to similar economic, cultural and demographic forces and issues.

Former President Ronald Reagan and Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher forged a linked conservative renaissance in both nations in the 1980s. Bill Clinton and Tony Blair bonded over Third Way centrism a decade later.

And on Thursday, Britons chose to stick with a blond-haired, thin-on-details, populist-style leader with a complicated relationship with the truth and open contempt for the press.

Trump certainly took inspiration for his own fortunes after Johnson secured the biggest Conservative majority since Thatcher's second reelection race in 1987.

"It might be a harbinger of what's to come in our country. It was last time," Trump told reporters at the White House on Friday.

Will Britain lead the way for Trump again?

Britain's surprising referendum vote to leave the European Union in 2016 foreshadowed Trump's victory later that year and was based on some similar populist, anti-establishment trends -- though Trump's repeated claims that he predicted the result are a flight of fancy.

Still, Conservatives' win -- and the Democratic presidential race and omens for Trump's reelection -- are not a perfect comparison for the primary race of the 2020 US election.

And Corbyn's problems were not just political.

It's unlikely that whoever emerges as the Democratic nominee will advocate values quite so antithetical to millions of voters.

Britain's vote was also overlaid by complications over Brexit that make it difficult to draw direct lines with the US.

Corbyn had a muddled position on the issue that did not appeal to core Labour voters who wanted out. Johnson campaigned on a simple phrase -- "Get Brexit Done" -- that recalled the clarity of Trump's "Make America Great Again" mantra. His challenge in the next few years will be to lock in voters who supported him over Brexit who have a generational suspicion of the Conservative Party and might return to Labour if it returns to a more moderate path.

Trump is seeking to do exactly the same thing in his reelection race in 2020 in midwestern swing states. And the President has been careful not to replicate one of the Labour Party's mistakes: His entire presidency -- with its riotous rallies and careful appeals to the base on issues like abortion and gun control -- sometimes seems like an attempt to stress his cultural affinity with the people who put him in power.

But while Trump frequently praises Johnson and both are seen as populists of the same mold, the comparisons can be overdrawn.

Johnson and Trump do share deep suspicion of the European Union. And their populism and the revolt against the establishment does seem motivated by political expediency.

Trump, in his years as a flamboyant real estate magnate and tabloid target, was often snubbed by Manhattan's social and political elites. But Johnson is hardly an outsider. He was educated at the elite Eton private school and comes from a social class that still regards itself as born to rule. While Trump seems dedicated to tearing down the social and political order, Johnson, whose hero is Winston Churchill, is simply clambering back to his ordained place in its upper echelons.

And the British Prime Minister is -- Brexit apart -- an utterly conventional figure. He's less radical than Thatcher in his conservatism. And from his belief in climate change to his position on the Iran nuclear deal, he's far closer to European leaders than Trump.

He's vowing to pour billions of British pounds into the country's state-run national health service -- a position that puts him closer to Sanders and Warren than to Trump.

In fact, Johnson sits comfortably in an ideological spectrum that encompasses leaders like Blair, Clinton, Barack Obama and former Prime Minister David Cameron. He's far from the disruptive, tear-down-the-establishment instincts of Trump.

And Britain's Labour Party is generally to the left of the Democrats -- its radical wings are far closer to authentic socialism than Sanders' proposals. And the balance of power of the Conservative Party, which, while radicalized over Europe, is to the left of the GOP's ideology on social issues.

So while there are clear comparisons and lessons to be drawn from the UK election result as the US looks towards 2020, the most important one might be this: every country and every election is unique.

See the original post:
Analysis: The real reason Democrats should study the UK election - CNN

Listen and subscribe to our podcast from your mobile device:

Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Google Play | RadioPublic | Stitcher

The Democratic Partys electorate is highly diverse, but its top-polling presidential contenders are all white. What gives? This week on The Argument, the columnists talk about Kamala Harriss exit from the race, Cory Bookers failure to launch and the polling ascendancy of their white opponents. The shock of Donald Trumps successful race-baiting run for the White House has convinced many Democrats that only a white male candidate can unseat him, argues Michelle Goldberg. David Leonhardt thinks that the order of primaries and caucuses privileges demographically white states and, thus, white candidates. And Ross Douthat says that while Pete Buttigieg ranks among the top tier of white Democrats, both his sexual orientation and his youth set him apart.

Then, ok boomer is more than just a dismissive meme. From culture to politics, the columnists discuss why we cant escape the baby boomer generation.

And finally, Ross recommends a terrifying television series that blends the historical and the supernatural.

Background Reading:

Ive been an Op-Ed columnist since 2009, and I write about politics, religion, pop culture, sociology and the places where they all intersect. Im a Catholic and a conservative, in that order, which means that Im against abortion and critical of the sexual revolution, but I tend to agree with liberals that the Republican Party is too friendly to the rich. I was against Donald Trump in 2016 for reasons specific to Donald Trump, but in general I think the populist movements in Europe and America have legitimate grievances and I often prefer the populists to the reasonable elites. Ive written books about Harvard, the G.O.P., American Christianity and Pope Francis; Im working on one about decadence. Benedict XVI was my favorite pope. I review movies for National Review and have strong opinions about many prestige television shows. I have three small children, two girls and a boy, and I live in New Haven with my wife.

Ive been an Op-Ed columnist at The New York Times since 2017, writing mainly about politics, ideology and gender. These days people on the right and the left both use liberal as an epithet, but thats basically what I am, though the nightmare of Donald Trumps presidency has radicalized me and pushed me leftward. Ive written three books, including one, in 2006, about the danger of right-wing populism in its religious fundamentalist guise. (My other two were about the global battle over reproductive rights and, in a brief detour from politics, about an adventurous Russian migr who helped bring yoga to the West.) I love to travel; a long time ago, after my husband and I eloped, we spent a year backpacking through Asia. Now we live in Brooklyn with our son and daughter.

Ive worked at The Times since 1999 and have been an Op-Ed columnist since 2016. I caught the journalism bug a very long time ago first as a little kid in the late 1970s who loved reading the Boston Globe sports section and later as a teenager working on my high school and college newspapers. I discovered that when my classmates and I put a complaint in print, for everyone to see, school administrators actually paid attention. Ive since worked as a metro reporter at The Washington Post and a writer at Businessweek magazine. At The Times, I started as a reporter in the business section and have also been a Times Magazine staff writer, the Washington bureau chief and the founding editor of The Upshot.

My politics are left of center. But Im also to the right of many Times readers. I think education reform has accomplished a lot. I think two-parent families are good for society. I think progressives should be realistic about the cultural conservatism that dominates much of this country. Most of all, however, I worry deeply about todays Republican Party, which has become dangerously extreme. This country faces some huge challenges inequality, climate change, the rise of China and theyll be very hard to solve without having both parties committed to the basic functioning of American democracy.

Tune in on iTunes, Google Play, Spotify, Stitcher or wherever you listen to podcasts. Tell us what you think at argument@nytimes.com. Follow Michelle Goldberg (@michelleinbklyn), Ross Douthat (@DouthatNYT) and David Leonhardt (@DLeonhardt) on Twitter.

This weeks show is produced by Kristin Schwab for Transmitter Media and edited by Sara Nics. Our executive producer is Gretta Cohn. We had help from Tyson Evans, Phoebe Lett, Ian Prasad Philbrick and Francis Ying. Our theme is composed by Allison Leyton-Brown.

Go here to see the original:
Why Is the Democratic Primary So White? - The New York Times

In the week where Democrats announced historic and fully-deserved articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump, they also started blowing it and throwing away 2020.

Just as impeachment needs their complete focus, Democrats started talking about how the rest of the year could be devoted to getting things done in Washington. They want to get it over with and move on to passing legislation that improves the lives of everyday Americans.

I put those phrases in quotes, because theyre the usual generic political pablum vomited from the bowels of a hundred focus groups.

In the words of the great American political scientist Lyndon Baines Johnson, Are you fucking kidding me?

Sadly, there's nothing more predictable and pathetic than Washington Democrats biting the bipartisan rube bait. First, they love any chance to spend money. Its the signifier for accomplishment for people who love them some government. Second, they still believe we live in a world where bipartisan comity sells.

For all the skill Nancy Pelosi has displayed as a political opposition leader against Trump, the idea that working with him is a net political positive for the Democrats is scorchingly stupid.

Donald Trump doesn't really want to pass USMCA or family leave or anything else for that matter. He certainly doesnt want to pass anything on Democratic holy-grail issues like health care, gun control, or climate change.

Donald Trump will Lucy them every time, pulling back the football at the last second. Democrats will walk out of Cabinet meetings thinking they can move forward on family leave or infrastructure spending only to see tweeted shit-talk from a president with zero good faith and less intelligence but who does understand that his base wants war, not cooperation. Nothing real will pass, and if it does, theyll get zero credit from Republicans, and nothing but a shrug from their base.

2020 is a referendum on Donald Trump. That is all 2020 is about.

The optics of sitting in the White House pretending to try and work with Donald Trump is like those awkward moments of mommy and daddy playing nice during the holidays while engaged in a horrifying long-running divorce. Everyone is uncomfortable, no one is fooled, and the net result is to simply delay the pain.

Democrats need their base voters fired up and turned out. They need to harness and channel the energy that motivates their most passionate voters to knock on doors, make calls, and show up at the polls in record numbers in 2020. That energy is the natural reaction to Donald Trumps corruption, criminality, and evil. Why squander and dilute it?

The cognitive dissonance in declaring Trump a lawless, reckless criminal who seeks to have foreign powers decide our elections and ride roughshod over our democracy and also declaring we can work with this guy is utterly astounding. What flavor of dumbfuckery inside the Democratic consultant class thinks playing happy families and singing Kumbaya with a president who lacks every moral and political scruple works to motivate their base?

But wait... what about Republicans who want to accomplish something on issue X? you ask.

I assure you, Republican members from swing states who offer up bipartisan legislation right now arent doing it for the good of the country. Theyre doing it because they understand the political poison of Donald Trump in the suburbs. They want to be able to run in 2020 by saying, Well, Trump is what he is, but I partnered with Democrats to help pass the Toilet Seat Standards and Safety Bill.

Speaking of the Senate, the concern isn't simply Pelosi getting wrapped around the axle by this trickery.

Its that Chuck Schumer has absolutely zero margin to work inside the Senate. He can't rely on Joe Manchin and a couple others when push comes to shove, and right now his 2020 operation needs all the help it can get.

Schumer must provide a contrast for Democratic voters. If Republicansespecially those running in purple states like Cory Gardner, Martha McSally, and Susan Collinscan go home and say, I'm trying to work across the aisle! I co-sponsored a child-care bill! Pay no attention to the Trumpstank wafting off of me! it's a net political deficit for the Democrats. Normalizing Trump doesnt help.

Trump richly deserves impeachment. That wont move the Republicans in the Senate, and the battle to hold this president to account is far, far from over. The idea that Democrats need to race through impeachment and that it will stain Trump permanently flies in the face of todays short-attention span politics. This is a war that doesnt end in a single House vote. It doesnt end by shrugging and saying, Oh, it was too hard to sue everyone to get testimony from the White House.

Trump gets this joke. He understands it perfectly.

This president is a con man, and hes sold various pigs in various pokes to various rubes for a long time. He conned people into believing he was rich. He conned people into buying overpriced condos and mid-tier golf resort memberships. He conned the American people into believing he was a god-tier business genius and paragon of negotiation skill and leadership. He conned the GOP out of its entire portfolio of political beliefs and turned it into a cult devoted to worshipping him.

How the actual hell do Democrats fall for the same scam?

It boggles the mind that the Democrats havent learned the tricks of the GOP. The purpose of the Benghazi hearings wasnt to get to the bottom of the attack, but to torture Hillary Clinton for a year. The dilatory pranks of the GOP in the current hearings arent to get to the truth, but to raise the level of pain and confusion in the process. The Republicans understand that this game is cynical, ugly, and purely based on political, not policy, outcomes.

Democrats are poised to lose the impeachment fight because they dont.

Jesus. Do I have to do all of this for you?

See the original post:
The Democrats Are Blowing Trump's Impeachment - The Daily Beast

In the lead-up to the 2016 election, Democrats fretted openly about the possibility that Donald Trump, being a rather poor sport, might refuse to acknowledge an election loss. To be fair, Trump refused to state that hewouldaccept election results, depending on the circumstances: "I'll keep you in suspense," he stated in his Oct. 19, 2016, debate with Hillary Clinton. Clinton, for her part, called his statement "horrifying," adding that he was harming American democracy.

Trump, of course, won. And Clinton spent the next couple of years suggesting openly that she had been robbed in the election. Democrats blamed Clinton's election loss on Russian interference, on voter suppression, on anything but Clinton's campaign performance.

That wasn't a particular shock: After George W. Bush won the 2000 election, many Democrats continued to maintain that he was an illegitimate president. And not much changed in the nearly two decades since: In 2018, Democrats insisted that Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams had actually defeated Brian Kemp, despite having lost by approximately 55,000 votes. To this day, Democratic presidential candidates repeat the lie that Kemp stole the election from Abrams.

MICHAEL GOODWIN: PELOSI'S TRUMP IMPEACHMENT QUEST THIS IS AN ESSENTIAL PART OF THE DUTIFUL CON JOB

Now in the run-up to 2020, Democrats are already suggesting that if President Trump wins, the election will have been illegitimate. This time, they're pointing to Trump's supposed attempt to gather information from the Ukrainian government on potential 2020 rival Joe Biden in return for release of much-needed military aid. In fact, Democrats state that if Trump is not impeached, the 2020 results will inevitably be deemed improper.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE OPINION NEWSLETTER

Last Sunday, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., who suggested way back in 2017 that though Trump was "legally elected," he was "not legitimate," doubled down: "The president, based on his past performance, will do everything he can to make it not a fair election. And this is part of what gives us the urgency to proceed with this impeachment."

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said, "The president leaves us no choice but to act because he is trying to corrupt, once again, the election for his own benefit."

Things are already ugly in American politics. A republic can only be maintained when the people have faith that even if their side loses an election, that election was legitimate -- and only when people believe that there is a tomorrow

Rep. Veronica Escobar, D-Texas, told CNN's Jake Tapper, "If you have a corrupt executive who is willing to maintain power by corrupting our election, there's an urgency there."

Former federal prosecutor Anne Milgram wrote in The New York Times, "Who gets to pick the next president of the United States -- President Trump, Ukraine, Russia or us?"

Impeachment, then, must be usedwithout proper evidence of a crimein order to prevent Trump from stealing the election. By this logic, any suspicion of illegitimacy in an upcoming election becomes an excuse for ousting a legitimately elected president.

This is a vicious cycle: illegitimate impeachments based on perception of illegitimate elections. And with Pelosi promising that our very civilization is at stake over the outcome of the next election, we can be sure that the pressure will continue to rise.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Things are already ugly in American politics. A republic can only be maintained when the people have faith that even if their side loses an election, that election was legitimate -- and only when people believe that there is a tomorrow.

With Democrats openly claiming that they can run an end-around with the electoral process because they don't trust the results, and stating that any future loss is evidence of corruption and a representation of the end of the country, things are about to get a lot uglier.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM BEN SHAPIRO

See the original post here:
Ben Shapiro: Will Democrats accept the results of the 2020 elections -- Even if Trump wins? - Fox News

Some people may be surprised to see Democrats fighting to expand a tax deduction for the wealthy. We are not.

It makes perfect sense, if you think about it.

The House Ways and Means Committee voted nearly along party lines to repeal a part of the 2017 Republican tax cut. But it wasnt the corporate-rate cut Democrats were targeting. It wasnt some imagined tax cut for corporate jets. Rather, Democrats passed a bill to scrap the cap on very-high-income individuals ability to deduct their state and local taxes on their federal tax returns.

The deduction for state and local taxes, or SALT, still exists. Republicans merely capped the deduction at $10,000. Since Republicans also doubled the standard deduction, this cap really only affects the uberwealthy. To repeat, after more than a decade of campaigning against "tax cuts for the rich," Democrats are now fighting tooth and nail for a special interest deduction that helps only the wealthy.

Democrats call their bill the Restoring Tax Fairness for States and Localities Act, but it should be titled, Expanding Tax Breaks for Wealthy White Suburban Democratic Voters Act. Expanding the deduction wont help most taxpayers in New York, California, or New Jersey. It will help only those whose incomes or property values are very high.

It is too simple to say that the deduction only benefits high-tax states, Nicole Kaeding at the Tax Foundation recently testified. It is better understood as benefiting high-income individuals, many of whom reside in high-tax jurisdictions with high housing values.

If the Democratic bill becomes law, it would not cut taxes for any families whose total deductible expenses, including state and local taxes, are below $24,000; those taxpayers will still take the standard deduction as current law allows. The Democratic bill would not cut taxes for anyone whose state and local income taxes add up to less than $10,000. In other words, this can in no way be mistaken for a middle-class tax cut.

Nearly all the benefit of repealing the SALT deduction cap goes to the wealthy. To be sure, Democrats plan to offset the revenue reduction by raising tax rates on the rich. But that is an odd one-two punch from the perspective of tax reform. To advocate for more tax loopholes but higher tax rates on everyone makes sense if you view the tax code as a way of forcing peoples behavior to change. On the other hand, lower rates and fewer loopholes are desirable if you want people to make decisions based on their personal preferences and economic reality.

There are politics at play here, of course. Democrats took the House in 2018 largely on the strength of places such as Orange County, California wealthy, high-tax suburbs with plenty of million-dollar homes. The Democrats feel they have to pay off the white-bread vote with some special tax breaks.

Its all very surprising if you believe the Democrats rhetoric. Its not surprising at all if you have been following their behavior.

Go here to read the rest:
Democrats try to restore a tax cut for the rich - Washington Examiner