Mediaboss Marketing

Five years later the Democrats would nominate an Iraq War opponent named Barack Hussein Obama and win decisively. By 2016, Bushism would be essentially repudiated in the Republican Party by Donald Trump. Today the vestiges of early-2000s hawkishness survive in establishment opposition to Bidens Afghanistan withdrawal, but dovishness is often a political asset rather than a liability, and the post-9/11 vision of a G.O.P. running against weak-on-terror Democrats long ago dissolved.

So has the Bush-era vision of a G.O.P. rallying so-called values voters, a Christian and churchgoing voting bloc, against secularism, sexual liberation and same-sex marriage. The Jesusland that showed up in liberal memes after the 2004 election has been shrinking ever since, and socially liberal values have advanced on a wide range of issues. A world where Republicans could run a national campaign promising to maintain marriage as a heterosexual institution has given way to a world where Republican-appointed Supreme Court justices lock in transgender rights and about one-sixth of American adults in Generation Z self-identify as outside heterosexuality (even if, one supposes, some of them still practice it).

Finally, progressivism has triumphed over the conservative ideology of welfare-state retrenchment, embodied by Bushs push for Social Security private accounts and, in a more dramatic way, by Tea Party deficit panic and Paul Ryans big plans for Medicare and Medicaid reform.

In 2003, this limited-government ideology was powerful enough to keep major health-insurance expansion off the table for Democrats. By 2011, that expansion had happened but seemed it could easily be rolled back, and Obama was officially committed to some form of the deficit reduction demanded by the Tea Party right. But since then, weve lived through a Republican administration that failed to dislodge Obamacare and ditched entitlement reform, an unprecedented experiment in social spending to carry the country through the pandemic and a further spending surge under Biden with Joe Manchin, the most rightward Senate Democrat on fiscal matters, standing to the left of where Obama stood 10 years ago.

So not one but three right-of-center ideologies crusading neoconservatism, moralizing religious conservatism, Tea Party government-cutting have fallen to progressivisms advance. Meanwhile, the country is more racially diverse, pot is legal or semilegal in many states, incarceration rates have fallen, and ideas once on the leftward fringe are dominant across media and academia. In all these ways and more, America in 2021 is the country that liberals in the Bush era wished they lived in: more liberal and permissive across multiple dimensions, less traditionally religious and heteronormative, less male-dominated and less white.

Read the original here:
Cheer Up, Liberals. You Have the America You Wanted.

Liberal media pundits and Democratic Party lawmakers denounced Republicans heckling President Joe Bidens State of the Union Address Tuesday night.

At various moments during his speech, Biden was met with jeers, boos, and accusations of him being a "liar" from various congressional Republicans in the House chamber, particularly when he invoked the fentanyl crisis ravaging American communities.

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., stood out among the vocal dissenters. At multiple points during the speech, the congresswoman could be heard shouting Biden was a "liar," with her most animated outburst occurring his claim that Republicans were looking to "sunset" social security.

Journalists and commentators from both network and cable news, as well as a couple indignant Democratic Party senatorsm made a point to denounce the heckling as "childish" and "distasteful." One journalist dubbed the hecklers "chaos entrepreneurs."

BIDEN REPEATEDLY FELL SHORT OF PROMISES HE MADE IN 2022 STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS

CNN's Jake Tapper and former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., discussed the hecklers that interrupted President Biden's State of the Union Address. (Screenshot/CNN)

CNN anchor Jake Tapper complained about the heckling to in-studio guest Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., the former Speaker of the House who tore up former President Donald Trumps 2020 SOTU speech on camera. While Republicans balked at the time, it delighted liberal media members; one Vox write-up gushed over "Pelosis small gesture that cut deepest." Several Democrats also boycotted or walked out of Trump's speech that year and received positive coverage for their gestures.

During CNNs evening coverage of the speech, Tapper said, "There was heckling like Ive never really heard at a State of The Union address."

"I think that they were protesting too much," Pelosi fretted.

Mentioning their jeering over Bidens social security beat, she added, "They knew that they had been identified as putting Medicare and social security on the table and they were trying to dismiss that." She added, "This was sort of showbiz."

"It didnt bother you though, the lack of decorum?" Tapper asked.

"No," Pelosi said. "Actually they were for them fairly well-behaved from what we see every day of the week in the House of Representatives unfortunately." Tapper laughed and moved on, making no mention of Pelosis behavior during Trumps State of The Union address.

Pelosi's past conduct didn't escape some Republicans' attention.

"Remember when Nancy Pelosi ripped the State of the Union speech? The media and the Democrats hailed her as a hero instead of criticizing her for a lack of respect and decorum. Imagine for a moment a Republican doing this how much more hypocrisy can we take as a country?" tweeted Arizona Republican Abraham Hamadeh.

During CBS News evening coverage of the address, CBS News anchor Norah ODonnell appeared shocked by the GOP heckling on the House floor.

"Speaker McCarthy is trying to present a new image, standing on many occasions, but there were a lot of disruptions from the crowd," she said.

BIDEN ONLY MENTIONED CHINA 3 TIMES IN 2022 STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS

President Joe Biden arrives to deliver the State of the Union address to a joint session of Congress at the Capitol, Tuesday, Feb 7, 2023, in Washington. (Jacquelyn Martin)

CBS News Chief White House Correspondent Nancy Cordes chimed in, saying, "Norah, weve seen Republican hecklers at States of the Union before but this time the speech almost turned into a call and response at some point. And at least four times, the House speaker had to visibly shush members of his party because they were shouting at the President of the United States."

Cordes added, "They called him a liar, they accused him of causing the fentanyl crisis, and on and on."

Later in the coverage, CBS News correspondent Scott McFarlane claimed that the heckling was "jarring" and bothering others in the chamber. He stated, "What you can't see on TV is the crowd in the upper level, these guests, these citizens who came with the members of Congress. It was so jarring. You could see it in their body language, you could see it in their facial expressions."

At another point in the CBS News coverage, anchor John Dickerson described the hecklers as "chaos entrepreneurs" who peddle in these outbursts.

Former Republican congressman-turned-CNN commentator Adam Kinzinger tore into Greene for her outbursts. On Twitter, the former lawmaker wrote, "My fellow Republicans you really want this as a role model for your kids? Do you really think the next generation will want to be part of this? I dont."

In another tweet, Kinzinger added, "The GOP should lead the censure of @RepMTG for her behavior."

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

CNN reported that Senators Dick Durbin, D-Ill., and Joe Manchin, D-W.V., were not pleased with the outbursts.

After the speech, Durbin described the hecklers as "really unbefitting" of the nature of the address. Manchin called the outbursts "awful childish," "distasteful" and claimed they "might be acceptable in a Third World country."

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., gives a thumbs down during President Joe Biden's State of the Union address during a joint meeting of Congress in the House Chamber of the U.S. Capitol on February 07, 2023 in Washington, DC. The speech marks Biden's first address to the new Republican-controlled House. (Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images) (Win McNamee/Getty Images)

MSNBC's Joe Scarborough also castigated his former party as "jackasses" on Wednesday morning.

Biden's remarks drew accolades in the liberal media, with MSNBC's Joy Reid calling him "brilliant" multiple times, CNN's Wolf Blitzer calling it one of the best speeches he's ever given, and left-wing historian Michael Beschloss gushing Biden was "Mr. Smooth."

Gabriel Hays is an associate editor for Fox News Digital.

Read more:
Liberals clutch pearls over GOP heckling Biden, didn't care Pelosi ...

As an ideology and in practice liberalism became the preeminent reform movement in Europe during the 19th century. Its fortunes, however, varied with the historical conditions in each countrythe strength of the crown, the lan of the aristocracy, the pace of industrialization, and the circumstances of national unification. The national character of a liberal movement could even be affected by religion. Liberalism in Roman Catholic countries such as France, Italy, and Spain, for example, tended to acquire anticlerical overtones, and liberals in those countries tended to favour legislation restricting the civil authority and political power of the Catholic clergy.

In Great Britain the Whigs had evolved by the mid-19th century into the Liberal Party, whose reformist programs became the model for liberal political parties throughout Europe. Liberals propelled the long campaign that abolished Britains slave trade in 1807 and slavery itself throughout the British dominions in 1833. The liberal project of broadening the franchise in Britain bore fruit in the Reform Bills of 1832, 1867, and 188485. The sweeping reforms achieved by Liberal Party governments led by William Gladstone for 14 years between 1868 and 1894 marked the apex of British liberalism.

Liberalism in continental Europe often lacked the fortuitous combination of broad popular support and a powerful liberal party that it had in Britain. In France the Revolutionary and Napoleonic governments pursued liberal goals in their abolition of feudal privileges and their modernization of the decrepit institutions inherited from the ancien rgime. After the Bourbon Restoration in 1815, however, French liberals were faced with the decades-long task of securing constitutional liberties and enlarging popular participation in government under a reestablished monarchy, goals not substantially achieved until the formation of the Third Republic in 1871.

Throughout Europe and in the Western Hemisphere, liberalism inspired nationalistic aspirations to the creation of unified, independent, constitutional states with their own parliaments and the rule of law. The most dramatic exponents of this liberal assault against authoritarian rule were the Founding Fathers of the United States, the statesman and revolutionary Simn Bolvar in South America, the leaders of the Risorgimento in Italy, and the nationalist reformer Lajos Kossuth in Hungary. But the failure of the Revolutions of 1848 highlighted the comparative weakness of liberalism on the Continent. Liberals inability to unify the German states in the mid-19th century was attributable in large part to the dominant role of a militarized Prussia and the reactionary influence of Austria. The liberal-inspired unification of Italy was delayed until the 1860s by the armies of Austria and of Napoleon III of France and by the opposition of the Vatican.

More From Britannica

property law: Marxism, liberalism, and the law

The United States presented a quite different situation, because there was neither a monarchy, an aristocracy, nor an established church against which liberalism could react. Indeed, liberalism was so well established in the United States constitutional structure, its political culture, and its jurisprudence that there was no distinct role for a liberal party to play, at least not until the 20th century.

In Europe, by contrast, liberalism was a transforming force throughout the 19th century. Industrialization and modernization, for which classical liberalism provided ideological justification, wrought great changes. The feudal system fell, a functionless aristocracy lost its privileges, and monarchs were challenged and curbed. Capitalism replaced the static economies of the Middle Ages, and the middle class was left free to employ its energies by expanding the means of production and vastly increasing the wealth of society. As liberals set about limiting the power of the monarchy, they converted the ideal of constitutional government, accountable to the people through the election of representatives, into a reality.

Read more:
Liberalism - Liberalism in the 19th century | Britannica

A series of three studies has found that political liberals tend to see emotions as more functional than more conservative people. This comes in spite of the fact that more liberal participants reported less emotional well-being. The research was published in Motivation and Emotion.

Over the past few decades, society in the United States has become more polarized. Liberals and conservatives have come to report more animosity towards the other group than warmth for their own group. Both studies and casual observations indicate that at least some of this polarization might come from the way they see and evaluate the importance of emotions.

The commonly endorsed stereotypes about the two political orientations also revolve around their attitude towards the importance of emotions. According to these stereotypes, liberals are seen as bleeding-hearts, emphasizing the importance of emotions, while conservatives are seen as cold, emphasizing a lower value assigned to emotions.

Conservative memes expressing scorn for liberal emotions such as Facts dont care about your feelings and America runs on liberal tears also emphasize this difference. The authors of the new research see this contrast between the two political orientations as differences in their beliefs about how functional emotions are.

We define functional as beneficial for individuals for adapting to the environment or attaining their goals, they explained. Traditionally, emotion was often portrayed as a dysfunctional reaction that derailed rational thinking and signaled weakness and vulnerability. Unemotional stoicism was idealized as a sign of rationality and maturity. Recent academic approaches, while acknowledging that emotions are not always helpful, portray emotion as an essential suite of processes that evolved to guide peoples thoughts and plans in a manner that helps them achieve their goals.

With this, the researchers set up a series of three studies to examine whether people across the partisan spectrum hold differing beliefs about the functionality of emotion.

In the first study, they analyzed data from an online survey of 189 undergraduate student from a university in California (89% female). Researchers analyzed assessments of beliefs about the functionality of emotions, openness to experience, well-being (assessed as life satisfaction, depression and anxiety), the intensity of emotional experience, emotion regulation, political partisanship, and religiosity (or the importance of religion in the respondents life).

Results showed that the more liberal the participants were, the more they viewed emotions as functional. More liberal participants also reported less well-being and reported that they experience emotions more intensely than more conservative participants.

The second study analyzed data from an online survey of 629 Californian and Texan undergraduates (351 from California, 77% female). The researchers analyzed data on the grade the student expected to receive an the upcoming exam, students appraisal of the importance of the exam, beliefs about the functionality of emotions, and well-being. These data were collected before the exam. After the exam, students completed another survey from which researchers analyzed data on the received grade at the exam and students emotional response to it along with political partisanship and religiosity.

Results replicated findings of the first study about the link between liberal orientation and viewing emotions as functional. Analyses revealed that people more open to experience and female participants saw emotions as more functional. Participants who received the expected grade and had viewed emotions as functional were happier about the outcome than those who viewed emotions as less functional. This association was not found in students whose grade was lower than expected.

The third study was an online survey of 537 Californian and Texan university students who completed questionnaires before and after the 2020 U.S. presidential election (439 from California, 77% female, 66% voted, 10% not eligible to vote). The questionnaire completed before the elections asked about political partisanship, beliefs about the functionality of emotions, well-being, and assessed the extent to which participants endorsed individualizing versus social binding values.

Afterward, students completed assessments of the importance of the outcome of the 2020 presidential elections, whether they saw it as positive or negative, and their emotional response to the election. They were also asked to report on how they voted. Results showed that liberals viewed emotions as more functional than conservatives and replicated the main findings of the previous two studies.

The researchers then used the data to estimate progressivism.

We defined progressivism as the extent to which each participant prioritized the individuating moral foundations of Care and Fairness more than the socially binding moral foundations of Loyalty, Authority, and Sanctity when judging actions to be right or wrong, they explained. Further analyses showed that the link between liberalism and viewing emotions as functional was largely explained by liberal participants greater endorsement of individualizing than social binding values.

Our findings suggest though that liberals view emotion as a feature of rationality while conservatives view it as a bug. Across three studies, liberals viewed emotion as more functional than conservatives that is, as a healthy source of information about the self that provides direction in life rather than as a weakness and a waste of time, the study authors concluded.

The study makes a valuable contribution to understanding the nature of differences between people of opposing political orientations. However, it has limitations that need to be taken into account. Namely, all the participants were undergraduate students, they were overwhelmingly female and of liberal political orientation. Studies on the general population and more conservative groups might not yield equal results.

The study, Do liberals value emotion more than conservatives? Political partisanship and Lay beliefs about the functionality of emotion, was authored by Minyoung Choi, Melissa M. Karnaze, Heather C. Lench, and Linda J. Levine.

Originally posted here:
Liberals view emotions as a feature of rationality, while conservatives ...

The political spectrum contains more philosophies and viewpoints than simply left and right.

Within each side are various political leanings and beliefs.

On the left side, you have everything from left-moderate to liberal to leftist.

All of these terms may seem confusing to someone who considers themselves either left or right.

You may be leftist without even realizing it.

You could be liberal and not a leftist.

Heres what you need to know about liberal vs. leftist and what the differences are between them.

While both liberals and leftists are on the left side of the political spectrum, there is a key difference between them.

The key difference is that liberals believe in more conservative practices when it comes to the economy.

Leftists believe the government needs to play more of a role in the economy.

For example, liberals believe that there should be more tax breaks for the wealthy and less government oversight overall.

Leftists believe that the wealthy should pay higher taxes to fund other social programs designed to help those not benefiting from capitalism.

To understand the difference between liberalism and leftism more easily, its a good idea to understand the history of each of these ideologies.

Liberalism can trace its roots back several centuries, but in terms of modern-day politics, the key point of time to examine is 19th-century England.

In England, there were two major political parties.

The Tories primarily expressed the interests of the Crown and those in the countryside.

The Whigs expressed the interests of the merchants and aristocracy.

In the mid-1800s, concepts like left and right didnt exist.

Neither of those parties would exactly fall into either of those categories today.

When the 1840s rolled around, however, the Tories and Whigs no longer did an accurate job of representing the people.

Thats because Britain was industrializing.

It needed new thinkers to contend with the new problems that society was facing.

These new thinkers proposed ideas that gave them the label new liberals.

Liberals wanted to know if capitalism worked for workers as well as those who owned factories.

They believed in the idea of the Invisible Hand introduced by Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations.

This Invisible Hand would steer the market in the workers favor.

The idea was that a factory would open and hire new workers.

The worker would then be able to buy more goods with their wages.

To accommodate those needs, a new factory starts production, and more workers start working.

The cycle continues harmoniously.

The belief that was if they got this idea working fast enough through low taxes and free trade rules, the system would increase the value of the worker while keeping the price of goods low.

The problem is that the society that existed in the 1800s isnt the same as a modern society.

In the 1800s, taxes were only raised when wars started.

Because of that, wars were generally avoided whenever possible.

Thats a stark difference from today in which ongoing wars create extraordinary wealth for certain members of society.

The Whigs fell out of power and this new party, called the Liberal Party, took center stage.

The role of the Liberal Party was to keep the cycle of the economy going with very little involvement.

This practice continued for over 70 years until World War 1.

That all changed in the early 20th century when a new party emerged.

Called the Labour Party, this political group called into question whether the liberals were doing enough for society.

Thus began the concept of leftism.

Leftism began with roots in the Labour Party in England.

They saw the poverty that had grown worse over the years due to the liberal system of capitalism.

They believed that Adam Smiths Invisible Hand tended to profit industrialists more than the workers.

This wasnt what the country had in mind when it adopted the concept.

It ended up leaving the poor behind and struggling to survive while the state did nothing to help them.

The Labour Party would go on to replace the Liberal Party.

They introduced policies that many consider leftist today.

Some of those policies include disability insurance, the National Health Service, and old-age pensions.

They also expanded income taxes.

These ideas made their way across the ocean to the United States.

Amid the Great Depression, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt was looking for ideas to help save the country from poverty.

Part of the reason he won his office was a leftist idea called The New Deal.

His main opponent at the time was Republican Herbert Hoover.

FDR championed liberal ideas about the market and the governments role in society.

The New Deal promised a stimulus package for everyone in the country.

It was the first time that the countrys residents would receive direct financial aid from the government they paid their taxes to.

Roosevelt would also go on to create several other social welfare programs designed to help and protect the working class.

These programs would continue to be a part of the political sphere into the second World War.

Even 40 years later, Presidents would take certain parts of leftism and use them as part of their political platform.

President Dwight Eisenhower, for example, expanded Social Security and helped low-income families with financial support.

Although he ultimately failed to get it through Congress, President Richard Nixon also tried to expand federal support for child welfare.

It was during the 1970s when leftism fell out of popularity.

Certain economists in the 1970s called for a return to a liberal market.

This was also trumpeted by then-presidential candidate Ronald Reagan.

He wanted to remove all the restrictions that the government had placed on the market.

In so doing, he believed the market would be able to release its magic and benefit everyone.

He strongly believed in Adam Smiths idea of the Invisible Hand steering the market and society as a result.

He wasnt the only political figure wanting to return to a liberal economy either.

Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher was also voicing her opinions on the matter.

Between the two of them, they fought against the formations of unions, and unions in general, and also reduced taxes for the wealthy.

They also cut the budgeting of several social programs if not eliminating them entirely.

Utilities and various industries that were once run by the government were also privatized and run by corporations instead.

Thus began an age called neoliberalism.

Although these tactics started with the Republican side of the spectrum, they were also used by the left side of the political spectrum.

President Bill Clinton saw the popularity that neoliberalism had and promised to reduce further welfare programs.

He also finished the North American Free Trade Agreement that George H. W. Bush started in his presidency.

Clinton brought together a new form of democrats that he called the New Democrats.

Tony Blair, also left-leaning, wanted to continue Thatchers work in terms of freeing up the market.

He wanted to modernize the welfare system by reducing it and keeping government involvement out of the economy as much as possible.

All of these changes led to the current economic state as it is today.

That brings both concepts to the present time.

You can see elements of liberalism in certain political figures and leftism in other political figures.

Joe Biden, a Democrat, is also a liberal.

He supported NAFTA as a bill and also pushed for the Affordable Care Act.

The ACA is market-based rather than true universal healthcare.

Excerpt from:
Liberal Vs. Leftist (Whats The Difference?) - The Cold Wire