Mediaboss Marketing

On Wednesday night, Sen. J.D. Vance (ROhio) took the stage at Catholic University in Washington, D.C., and declaredto the astonishment of many who subsequently read the quote onlinethat "there is no meaningful distinction between the public and the private sector in the American regime."

The remark came during a panel discussion about Regime Change, a new book by the "post-liberal" Notre Dame political scientist Patrick Deneen, in which Deneen argues that classical liberals and left-progressives are all pushing the same agenda and need to be "replaced" by a new conservative elite. (Keep an eye out for a review in the August/September issue of Reason.)

A longer version of the Vance quote gives the context:

One of the really bad hangovers from that uniparty that Patrick talked about is this idea that there is this extremely strong division between the public sector and the private sector. You know, the public sector is the necessary evil of government. We want to limit it as much as possible, because to the extent that we don't limit it, it's going to do a lot of terrible things. And then you have the private sector, that which comes from spontaneous order. It's organic. It's very Burkean. And we want to let people do as much free exchange within that realm as possible. And the reality of politics as I've seen it practiced, the way that lobbyists interact with bureaucrats interact with corporations, there is no meaningful distinction between the public and the private sector in the American regime. It is all fused together, it is all melded together, and it is all, in my view, very much aligned against the people who I represent in the state of Ohio.

I will give you a couple of examples here. One, when I talk to sort of more traditionalist economic conservatives, what Patrick would call economic liberals, when I talk to these guys about, for example, why has corporate America gone so woke, I see in their eyes this desperate desire to think that it's all just coming from the [Securities and Exchange Commission]. That there are a couple of bad regulations at the SEC, and that in fact [BlackRock CEO] Larry Fink would love to not be a super woke driver of American enterprise, and that Budweiser has no desire to put out a series of advertisements that alienate half their customer base. They're just being forced to do it by evil bureaucrats. And there is an element of truth to that. The element of truth is that the regime is the public and private sector. It's the corporate CEOs, it's the H.R. professionals at Budweiser, and they are working together, not against one another, in a way that destroys the American common good. That is the fact that we are dealing with.

There are, of course, countless ways that the public sectorgovernmenthas its tentacles in private sector affairs. Through taxation and regulation; through the subsidies and targeted benefits that are a mainstay of the industrial policy that so many on the New Right want to double down on; and, yes, through insidious pressure campaigns like those uncovered through the Twitter and Facebook Files, state power is routinely brought to bear to nudge or compel private actors into doing what those holding the power want. Needless to say, we should be skeptical, if not hostile, toward all such efforts.

Interestingly, this does not appear to be what Vance is referring to. If anything, he's saying it's naive to focus on instances of state coercion. Instead, Vance seems upset that some business executives share the same "woke" values that government actors express. (They are, after all, highly educated fellow members of the professional managerial class!) And because they believe in radical environmentalism, trans-inclusive politics, and all the rest, according to Vance, these private sector leaders are all too happy to collaborate with lawmakers and federal bureaucrats to put those values into practice.

Vance here is channeling the neoreactionary blogger Curtis Yarvin, a.k.a. Mencius Moldbug, who has popularized the idea that "all the modern world's legitimate and prestigious intellectual institutions, even though they have no central organizational connection, behave in many ways as if they were a single organizational structure" with "one clear doctrine or perspective." He calls this decentralized entity "the Cathedral" and argues that the only way to combat it is by replacing America's liberal democratic regime with an absolute monarchy or (benevolent, one hopes) dictatorship.

But Vance goes further even than Yarvin, who defines the Cathedral as consisting of the mainstream media and the universities; Vance insists that government officials are also implicated. This step is critical, because the New Right, rejecting the classical liberal commitment to limited government and rule of law, openly calls on conservatives to wield state power against their domestic political "enemies," among whom it counts lefty corporations, universities, and nonprofits.

I've made this point almost ad nauseam by now, but if you need a refresher, look no further than this illustrative quote from Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts: "This is our moment," he recently told The American Conservative, "to demand that our politicians use the power they have. This is the moment for us to demand of companies, whether they're Google, or Facebook, or Disney, that you listen to us, rather than ram down our throats and into our own families all of the garbage that you've been pushing on us. This is our time to demand that you do what we say. And it's glorious."

For an even more concrete example, consider the time Vance went on live TV and proposed targeting left-wing institutions such as the Ford Foundation and Harvard for their political views. "Why don't we seize the assets," he asked, "tax their assets, and give it to the people who've had their lives destroyed by their radical open borders agenda?"

This is obviously contrary to the laws of our land. The American constitutional system "protects private actors," says Notre Dame law professor Richard W. Garnett, while constraining how government officials can exercise their power. "Private actors have free speech rights. The government doesn't. Private actors have freedom of religion. Government doesn't. Private schools can train kids for their sacraments. Government schools can't. The whole landscape of our constitutionally protected freedoms depends on this conceptual distinction between state power and the nonstate sphere."

But that distinction is an obstacle preventing post-liberals such as Vance from using the government to punish private entities who express views or implement policies that they, the post-liberals, dislike. And so, to give themselves permission to do what they want, they have to get people to believe that the distinction is already obsolete.

It's not. In fact, the "collusion" that Vance would use as justification to strip private actors of their rights consists of some of the very activities named in the First Amendment: voicing political opinions and advocating for changes to public policy. That some business executives happen to agree with some federal bureaucrats on some topics does nothing to transform private entities into public ones or to erase the distinction between the two spheres. (And that assumes Vance et al. are correct about the scope of the overlap, which they've thus far made little effort to demonstrate.)

None of this means you have to like the way companies use their rights. "If there are large private entities that are engaging in speech that some might find offensive," Garnett says, "you can boycott them, you can not patronize them, you can criticize them, you can set up your own businesses" to compete with them. But the New Right appears to be "impatient" with these remedies.

"It seems to me that it's perfectly appropriate to point out, as Deneen and Vance are doing, that a lot of corporate America seems to be going outside of its lane in very ideological ways," Garnett says. "But it doesn't follow from that that the government can silence them or punish them."

Read more:
Post-Liberal Authoritarians Want You To Forget That Private Companies Have Rights - Reason

If you want to understand why public debate is so screwed up, turn your mind back to the divorce referendum campaign in 1995. It is a somewhat arbitrary starting point but deeply symbolic for me. Why? Because I remember opening a Sunday newspaper and reading a prominent opinion piece tearing into the No campaign. I dont recall the headline verbatim but it was along the lines of Dont listen to what the No camp has to say. Just look at who is in it.

The author was a standard-bearer of liberal-left exactly where I fancied myself to be on the political spectrum and I was never going to do anything other than vote Yes (supporting the legalisation of divorce). However, the article deeply disturbed me because there was a No campaigner who I happened to know and love someone who I knew to be a compassionate, open-minded and sincere individual and that person was my father.

Identity politics has been around for aeons in different guises but that article crystallised for me a new approach to moral disagreement: dont judge someone elses viewpoint on its merits, just ask what tribe the speaker came from. My father was, like hundreds of thousands of people in Ireland, firmly in the conservative Catholic camp, against which the winds of change were then blowing.

The same tactic would be repeated again and again in subsequent campaigns around social and moral issues. Not every campaigner on the liberal agenda took an absolutist approach to conservatism but all too often people dissenting from progressive causes were pigeonholed as depending on the issue homophobic, misogynistic, sexist or just plain nuts.

This pattern continued for years until something quite curious occurred: some card-carrying members of the left, along with libertarians and a cohort of feminists, started to come under attack for perceived backwardness on certain progressive issues, notably critical race theory, hate speech and transgenderism.

[Teenage anxiety and smartphones: Is the answer to ban social media?]

This shifting landscape is examined in fascinating detail by Bryan Fanning, the University College Dublin professor of migration and social policy, in a new book, Public Morality and the Culture Wars. A dichotomy between conservatives and liberals that dominated public debate for decades has now been displaced by a triple divide between three sets of protagonists each with distinct perspectives on social and moral issues, Fanning writes. What makes this so disorientating for what might be called traditional liberals those who fought long and hard against clerics trying to control peoples thoughts and actions is that some progressives are using tactics from not only the liberal playbook but also the conservative one by seeking to police public speech and moderate public behaviour.

My contention is that the culture wars of the 21st century have become asymmetric, Fanning declares. Throughout the 20th century, these appeared to express dualistic conflicts between conservatives and an alliance of progressives and those committed to classic liberal values. However, new alliances can be identified between conservatives and liberals against progressives who now appear to be sufficiently influential to enforce their values as public morality.

Conservatives may take some pleasure from the discomfort of their traditional rivals its as though liberals didnt realise the importance of freedom of conscience until they were the ones being cancelled but Fanning rightly highlights that were all vulnerable in a society of mutual moral incomprehension.

Fannings book is rich with ideas and ambitious in scope. He tracks the evolution of moral philosophy from the Enlightenment to the present day, identifying a number of key factors of special relevance to our current predicament.

One of these has been a broadening of the definition of harm beyond physical harm to include psychological harm or harming someones feelings. What Fanning calls therapeutic individualism breaks with the liberal understanding of the primacy of free speech because it advocates curbing speech that might challenge somebodys subjective sense of self.

Another turning point has been the rise of social media, which has undoubtedly fuelled tribalism, intolerance and conformity within groups.

But perhaps the most crucial development identified by Fanning is the ascendancy of post-Christian secularism. This is dramatised in the book as the triumph of Richard Rorty, an influential American atheist who advocated a dismissal of religion, over Charles Taylor, a liberal Catholic philosopher who lamented the disappearance of religious thinking entirely from public life.

Heavily influenced by Friedrich Nietzsche, Rorty argued that liberal progressives should kick away the ladder from Christian theology and allied modes of thinking stretching back to antiquity. However, Taylor believed this would badly handicap moral debate. In particular, Taylor highlighted how liberal concepts like freedom and rights only got you so far in terms of resolving moral dilemmas.

[If you were in Zelenskiys shoes, would you have fled your country?]

In sexual relations, for example, consenting adults are free to do what they want. But can liberalism tell us whether promiscuity is bad? Or consider the consumption of alcohol something Fanning astutely examines in the context of the prohibition movement: Adults are free to consume what they wish but can liberalism tell us whether people should stupefy themselves with drugs? In trying to answer such questions, we tend to reach for medical advice promiscuity carries a higher risk of disease, drug-taking damages the body, and so on but science can only inform moral argument, it cant resolve it.

Another downside from kicking away the ladder is that it cuts us off from the foundational school of all moral thinking, namely virtue theory. An assumption that each one of us has a moral duty to cultivate virtues virtues like honesty, compassion and mercy nourished the first democracies of Ancient Greece and underpinned social revolutions that have brought us the very freedoms we enjoy today. Would there be any culture wars if we learned to be better listeners, or to practise forgiveness?

An irony is that, for all the demonisation of the Catholic Church in recent years, religion is a significant repository of mercy a virtue that is in short supply as we try to address new and complex ethical questions. Fanning points out that western liberalisms core value was tolerance but it has proven to be more than capable of being intolerant towards certain groups. It is easy to tolerate those who agree with you but, as Pope Francis declared on a visit to the Middle East last year, the real challenge is to learn how to love everyone, even our enemies.

My late father, incidentally, was a teetotaller and a member of the Pioneers but he was tolerant of drinkers. So tolerant in fact that he bought me my first legal beer when I challenged him to take me to the pub when Id turned 18 (he had a Coke). As it happened, he worshipped in the same parish as Fr Tony Coote, who died in 2019 after being diagnosed with motor neurone disease. One of the priests many progressive campaigns was to fight for the establishment of an LGBT+ group in the parish. A banner that he commissioned still hangs in the local church. It reads: Love not judgement.

* Public Morality and the Culture Wars: The Triple Divide by Bryan Fanning is published by Emerald (24)

Love not judgement: A banner commissioned by campaigning priest Fr Tony Coote hangs in the Church of St Thrse, Mount Merrion, Dublin where he worked before his death in 2019

Go here to see the original:
Lessons for liberals now that it's their turn to be cancelled - The Irish Times

In his May 7 opinion piece, Bryan Clark did a good job providing an overview of the proposed open primary and ranked-choice voting initiative, but his introductory paragraphs highlight the frustrations and anxiety of many socially liberal Idahoans. This might lead many to conclude that a socially conservative person should oppose this initiative,.

I beg to differ. Im strongly pro-life and a supporter of the proposed initiative. Why?

I see a need for more serious legislators than the closed primary process produces. Our state has good pro-life laws. However, pregnant women in Idahos biggest population centers are within driving distance of states with liberal abortion laws. This should create a sense of urgency in the Legislature to find ways to make it easier for women to keep their babies and to support them through pregnancy.

One solution could be increasing our shamefully low $205 Child Tax Credit to $1,000, and making it refundable on a monthly basis beginning in the third month of pregnancy and continuing until age 2. We could also eliminate the sales tax on food, diapers and formula, all expenses that hit all families particularly hard, including single moms. Finally, the Legislature could crack down on child support enforcement. A state serious about supporting moms and protecting life should not allow men to make babies and then keep working part-time, living on their parents couch and spending their income on beer, porn and pot while working moms and Idaho taxpayers pick up the slack.

Adam Graham

Youll not see such serious practical issues that impact mothers and kids addressed by the Idaho legislature any time soon. Theyre too busy catering to very online primary voters, many of whom have fallen down the rabbit holes of sensationalist news sites. These sites emphasize issues that get clicks and viewership but are often neither the most important or the most common issues that Idaho families deal with.

Serious people dont want to run for the Legislature because they cant even pretend to be the type of people that core Republican Primary voters want, nor would they want to be. The result is that we have a Legislature that is full of show horses acting like theyre trying to get a Daily Wire gig rather than workhorses who are there to do the work of the people.

Story continues

Opponents of this initiative are going to spend a lot of time over the next eighteen months trying to scare voters because thats all they know how to do. But the truth is simple: This initiative will not turn Idaho blue, it will not make Idaho socially liberal or lead to overturning pro-life laws.

What it will do is empower the people who want to live, work, and raise a family to choose legislators who will effectively represent their values rather than a radicalized fringe that is focused on issues that have nothing to do with the best interests of our State.

Adam Graham is a Boise-based writer and former Republican activist.

Originally posted here:
Primary initiative isnt just for liberals. Heres why conservatives should support it | Opinion - Yahoo News

OTTAWA - Reforms in the federal budget bill that seek to clarify Canadas sanctions regime will actually have the opposite effect, warn The Canadian Bar Association and a lawyer helping firms navigate the rules.

From the perspective of assisting Canadian businesses doing business with Russia the legislation is flawed, in that it is incomplete and lacks clarity, saidWilliam Pellerin, an Ottawa-based trade lawyer with the firm McMillan LLP.

The Liberals are proposing changes that would specify which entities are barred from doing business with Canadians, such as companies that are 50 per cent or more owned by someone whom Ottawa has sanctioned.

While thatchange puts Canada in line with its allies, Pellerin argued many of theother proposals are too vague.

Maybe the governments intention here is to make the legislation unworkable for Canadian businesses. And if thats the case, then theyre accomplishing their objective, he said in an interview.

If, on the other hand, the purpose of the legislation is to provide clarity and ensure that Canadian businesses are competitive with their U.S. and EU counterparts, then the legislation fails.

Pellerin noted that another part of the bill targets foreigners who can direct a companys activities directly or indirectly, and through any means, which he said will be too difficult for companies to track.

The legislation also doesnt seem to clarify if an entity is barred when its ownership involves more than one sanctioned person who together pass the threshold of 50 per cent ownership, he said.

Click to expand

In a brief to the House finance committee, the Canadian Bar Association said the current phrasing is highly subjective and may lead to inconsistent outcomes.

For example, if a sanctioned person has the ability to vote on the composition of a corporations board, or can appoint just one of 12 board members, that would likely bar the company from commerce with Canadians under the proposed amendments.

Pellerin noted that Britains legislation is more constrained, such that a company would only be affected if a sanctioned person holds 50 per cent of a corporations voting rights or the ability to control a majority of a corporations board appointments.

The new rules would create more uncertainty and penalize Canadian entities seeking to comply with rules that arent as clear as those in other countries, the bar association said.

The amendments do not increase the predictability and certainty of Canadas sanction regime. Rather, they cause further confusion and compliance challenges, its brief said, adding it demanded clarity long before the Liberals tabled their budget in late March.

To date, no guidance has been issued by Global Affairs Canada despite repeated and long-standing requests from the (association), trade lawyers and the business community, read the brief.

In a Friday statement, the department said it is closely reviewing the points raised by both Pellerin and the CBA.

The government of Canada is committed to mitigating the impacts of Canadas sanctions legislation on Canadas business community and supporting effective implementation of sanctions, wrote spokesman Grantly Franklin.

He added that the proposed changes aim to clarify certain provisions, make processes more efficient, increase information-sharing and tighten Canadas sanctions regime.

Pellerin assists companies navigate Canadian sanctions, particularly involving Russia. At times, that includes global mining or energy corporations that have worked for years in both countries, given their similar terrain.

Other clients are finding it hard to do business even with companies that sit far away from Russia, he said, such as in Gulf states. They might only learn those companies are partly owned by a Russian oligarch when a transaction gets blocked.

No one wants to see Russia succeed with its further invasion of Ukraine. I think thats a key point here, he stressed.

Less-contested changes in the bill involve making permanent the ongoing temporary withdrawal of Russia and Belarus from preferential tariffs, meaning goods from those countries would remain subject to a 35 per cent tariff.

The amendments would also clarify that an unused law to forfeit sanctioned assets can be used against all sanctioned people and not just those who are Russian citizens, and broaden the phrasing of sanctions law to include not just goods but property in general.

The bill would also allow Canada to sanction foreigners who are citizens of countries that Ottawa hasnt yet targeted for sanctions.

Currently, the government must undertake a regulatory process to add a country to the sanctions regime if any of its citizens are to be sanctioned. It has had to undertake that process in order to target Moldovans who have assisted Russias war effort.

The amendment would allow Canada to list any non-Canadian without assessing an entire country. This means it could, for example, sanction an American who aided Moscow.

There has been a historic uptick in the number of individuals and corporations Ottawa has sanctioned recently in response to Russias invasion of Ukraine, as well as to human-rights crackdowns in Iran and gang violence in Haiti.

This week, the Senates foreign-affairs committee called on Ottawa to clarify the reasons it issues sanctions and improve the ways it assesses whether financial embargoes and travel bans are actually working.

The senators called for more transparency around the obligations of Canadian businesses, how Ottawa chooses who to target and what people can do to appeal sanctions.

The senators noted that Canada provides less guidance than its allies on how companies are supposed to follow the rules, though some of the budget bills measures would address that concern.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published May 19, 2023.

Read more from the original source:
Lawyers argue Liberals proposal to clarify sanctions regime does the opposite - Toronto Star

In an effort to defend Canadas disastrous safer supply drug strategy, Associate Health Minister Carolyn Bennett, who is responsible for the program, has cited a new study, which suggests that safer supply actually works. However, the research referenced by the minister is, according to experts, of low-quality. No responsible politician should use it to guide high-stakes addiction policy.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

The MySafe program is a safer supply initiative that has used vending machines to dispense opioids since 2020. The evaluation argues that the machines have been a qualified success and that, while nearly every study participant continued using illicit drugs, they used less, experienced fewer overdoses, were more financially secure and reported improved health.

That sounds great, except theres a catch: these findings are so flimsy that its difficult to draw any firm conclusions from them.

The MySafe evaluation is a qualitative study, meaning that, rather than crunching hard data, it relies on semi-structured interviews with 46 individuals who had used MySafe for at least one month. These interviews were gathered in late 2021 and early 2022, and then interpreted and summarized by the studys authors.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

While qualitative studies may be acceptable in other fields, using them to guide policy and practice is unthinkable in most health care settings, especially when peoples lives are at stake.

Dr. Sharon Koivu, an addiction physician with the London Health Sciences Centre (LHSC), says that qualitative research is unreliable because it is vulnerable to being manipulated by researchers, who can control the results that are generated using this method.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Safer supply programs involve the use of a potent opioid which has significant risks and dangers. They require studies consistent with the higher standards of pharmaceutical research, said Dr. Koivu, who believes that higher quality evidence, such as randomized control trials, should be used to investigate safer supply.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

According to both doctors, the study failed to address the fact that those interviewed for the study had extremely strong financial incentives to prolong their access to safer supply opioids, which are often sold on the black market for profit.

There is no way to evaluate the accuracy or truthfulness of participants responses, said Dr. Somers.

Dr. Koivu said that, throughout her long career of studying drug-related infections, she has found that patients lie to researchers out of fear of losing access to their preferred drugs.

When asked about how the CMAJ study compares to other research that supports safer supply, Dr. Koivu said, Essentially all studies on safer supply are qualitative. They rely heavily or exclusively on self-reporting. There is no attempt to ensure the authenticity of the reporting.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Yet the CMAJ study is more concerning than most, because not only does it rely on weak and unreliable qualitative data, its very design is inadequate.

Similarly, Dr. Somers said that the studys interview questions seemed to avoid broaching topics which could reflect poorly on safer supply for example, the study included no questions exploring the well-documented problem of pimps, abusive spouses and drug dealers confiscating opioids from vulnerable safer supply recipients.

Both doctors noted that the study made no attempt to compare safer supply with other evidence-based addiction interventions.

Due to privacy concerns, the transcripts from the interviews gathered for the MySafe evaluation are not available to the public only a small number of excerpts have been shared in the final report, making it impossible to properly evaluate the study.

National Post

Read the original post:
Adam Zivo: Liberals rely on poor quality research to defend safer supply - National Post