Mediaboss Marketing

Lyndon B. Johnson, as US President, with Hubert H. Humphrey, as US Vice President. (AP)

It was once said that the moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those who are in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy and the handicapped.

These words of the late Minnesota Sen. Hubert H. Humphrey have always best defined for me what it means to be a liberal Democrat. I still believe them to govern my political philosophy.

The key is belief in government not as the problem but as the needed counterpoint to over-concentrated power to level the playing field, as progressive presidents from Teddy Roosevelt to Franklin Delano Roosevelt to John Kennedy to Bill Clinton would say, for equal opportunity, individual responsibility and social justice for the average American.

[pullquote]

In recent months, however, some people who sincerely believe they are liberals are being quoted in the national media and on the blogosphere as if their definition of liberalism is the only one.

For example, if a Democrat is on record as pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, pro-ObamaCare, pro-minimum wage, pro-labor, pro-strong environmental regulation or pro-preschool supported by taxes, if that Democrat also believes in the value of business, believes in the private sector as being the best job creator and often more efficient than government, that Democrat still risks being called a conservative or, to many even worse, a centrist.

This reminds me of something I wrote about my own personal liberal political hero in the 1960s, the late Sen. Robert F. Kennedy of New York, brother of former President Kennedy. Here is what I wrote in my 2006 book, "Scandal: How Gotcha Politics Is Destroying America:"

When Kennedy announced the Bedford-Stuyvesant redevelopment plan, which used Republican-style market incentives and tax breaks for business to spur jobs in the urban inner city, he was criticized by a well-known and respected Democratic socialist writer, Michael Harrington, as putting too much trust in private business. Kennedys reportedly responded: The difference between me and [Republican conservatives] is I mean what I say.

... Kennedy also prayed with Cesar Chavez in the grape fields of California to win collective bargaining rights and justice for agricultural workers. ... He was sometimes rough, often described as ruthless ... but was seen by both left and right as blunt-speaking, passionate and authentic. ... His followers ran the gamut, from culturally conservative blue collar workers who became Reagan Democrats in the 1980s to the poorest African Americans and Hispanics in Americas underclass. The results of the May 1968 Indiana Democratic primary were a dramatic indication of this. He carried 9 of the 11 congressional districts, won 17 of the 25 rural southern counties, won more than 85 percent of the African American vote, and carried the seven [white] backlash counties that segregationist George Wallace had won in the 1964 Democratic presidential primary.

So, although RFK is remembered as a liberal for his 1968 anti-war and anti-poverty presidential campaign ... he represented someone who is neither left, nor right, but both; liked and disliked by both; pro-business but also pro-regulation; religious and even moralistic about family values and faith, but tolerant of dissent and committed to the separation of Church and State. Most importantly, Robert Kennedy connected with people who wanted their problems solved.

Believe it or not, I actually read over the weekend in an Associated Press article that there are some self-described liberals who challenge President Obamas liberal credentials because he attempted to negotiate a grand bargain with Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) last year to try to reduce budget deficits and a $16 trillion national debt (now approaching $17 trillion, or about equal to gross domestic product).

What would Hubert Humphrey and Robert Kennedy say if they were alive today, about a government that uses credit cards every day to pay for all its programs and plans to dump all the receipts on the laps of its children and grandchildren, expecting them to pay the tab?

I believe both men would regard such a government, unwilling to raise taxes and cut spending and reform entitlements to avoid passing the tab to our children, as neither moral nor liberal.

If you are a liberal, what do you think?

This column appears first and weekly in The Hill and the Hill.com.

Original post:
What is a liberal? What is a conservative? | Fox News

Blue states are states that have a more liberal population and culture, as opposed to the conservative red states. While there are many more red states than blue states, the blue states tend to have much higher populations, so they have higher numbers in indexes like the electoral college and the number of congressional representatives.

There are also neutral states, usually referred to as swing states because these states could go either Democratic or Republican in an election. Candidates typically do most of their campaigning in the swing states, including Pennsylvania, Virginia, Wisconsin, Michigan, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Colorado, Nevada, and Florida.

The most liberal state in the country is Massachusetts, where the equally progressive city of Boston is located. Next is Hawaii, followed by Vermont, Washington, New York, New Hampshire, California, Maryland, New Jersey, and Maine. This index of how liberal a state is is based on how many liberals there are compared to conservatives.

Just like some states can be more liberal than others, some cities are more liberal than others. These cities tend to have high minority populations and public expressions of LGBTQ+ acceptance. The most liberal city is San Francisco, California, followed by Washington, DC; Seattle, Washington; Oakland, California; Boston, Massachusetts; Minneapolis, Minnesota; Detroit, Michigan; New York City, New York; Buffalo, New York; and Baltimore, Maryland. Notice that all of these cities are in blue states.

States can change from liberal to conservative over time due to factors like immigration, empowerment of minority groups (which tend to support liberal policies over conservative ones), and taxation. New York, for example, used to be highly conservative but is now much more progressive.

Below are the ten most liberal states in the United States. The data is based on a 2018 Gallup pull.

Massachusetts is the most liberal state in the U.S., with 35% of voters identifying as liberal. With 21% of voters identifying as conservative, Massachusetts has a liberal advantage of 14 points. Moderates are the largest group in Massachusetts, with 38% of the voting population identifying as moderate. In the 2016 presidential election, 60% of voters voted Democratic.

Massachusetts is also the home state of well-known politicians such as Elizabeth Warren, Michael Dukakis, Jill Stein, and the Kennedys. That state also has many urban areas and a highly educated population two factors that strongly contribute to a liberal environment.

Maine is the second-most liberal state in the country. 33% of voters identify as liberal; however, the liberal advantage is -2 because 35% of voters identify as conservative. In the 2016 presidential election, 47.9% of Maine voted Democratic, while 44.9% voted Republican. Maine is one of the few states where moderates do not outnumber liberals or conservatives, with 29% of voters identifying as moderate.

Vermont is the third-most liberal state in the country, with 32% of voters identifying as liberal. With 28% of voters identifying as conservative, Vermont has a liberal advantage of 4 points, the third-highest country. 56.3% of Vermont voters voted Democratic in the 2016 election, while 30.3% voted Republican. In 2012, Barack Obama won Vermont by 35.6 percentage points.

Vermont is the home of Bernie Sanders, a self-described democratic socialist with very leftists views who ran for president unsuccessfully in 2016 and is running again in 2020. He received 71% of the vote in Vermont in 2016.

With 31% of voters identifying as liberal, Washington is the fourth-most liberal state in the United States. 28% of voters identify as conservative, giving Washington a liberal advantage of 3 points. Moderates have the largest percentage of voters, with 37%. In the 2016 presidential election, 52.5% of voters voted Democratic.

New York is the fifth-most liberal state in the U.S. 30% of voters identify as liberal in New York versus 27% who identify as conservative, giving New York a 3-point liberal advantage. New York is geographically split, a majority of upstate areas vote conservative, and the larger metro areas vote liberal. In the 2016 presidential election, 59% of voters voted Democratic.

New Hampshire is the sixth-most liberal state in a tie with New York at 30%. New Hampshire is 28% conservative, giving it a slightly less liberal advantage than New York of 2 points. In the 2016 presidential election, 46.8% of voters voted Democratic, only a 0.3% lead over those who voted Republican (46.5%).

California is the seventh-most liberal state in the United States. 29% of voters identify as liberal, and 29% identify as conservative, giving California a liberal advantage of zero points. 36% of voters in California identify as moderate. As the state with the most electoral votes, Californias vote is a big deal in elections. In the 2016 presidential elections, 61.5% of voters voted Democratic, a 30% lead over the Republican vote.

Oregon is the eighth-most liberal state in the country, with 28% of voters identifying as liberal. Oregon has a liberal advantage of -4 points due to 32% of voters identifying as conservative; however, 35% of voters identify as moderate. In the 2016 presidential election, 50.1% of voters voted Democratic while 39.1% voted Republican. The most Democratic areas of the state were around Eugene and Portland.

In a tie with Oregon is Maryland, which also has 28% of voters identifying as liberal. Maryland voters are 29% conservative, giving the state a -1 point liberal advantage. The largest group of voters is moderate, at 39%. Most of Marylands liberal base is in the Washington D.C. metro area and Baltimore. In the 2016 presidential election, 60.3% of voters voted Democratic.

Maryland legalized gay marriage, pushed for major gun restrictions, and imposed tax increases, among other progressive policies.

Hawaii is tied with both Maryland and Oregon has the eighth-most liberal state in the United States. 28% of voters in Hawaii identify as liberal, and 22% identify as conservative, giving Hawaii a liberal advantage of 6 points, the second-highest in the country. Moderates are the largest group in Hawaii, with 45% of voters identify as moderate, which is also the largest percentage of any state in the country. In 2016, 62.2% of Hawaii voters voted Democratic in the presidential election.

The top ten most liberal urban areas in the United States, starting with the most liberal city in America, include the following:

Continue reading here:
Most Liberal States 2021 - World Population Review

Yet the centre-right prime minister, Mark Rutte, is still likely to form a government

DUTCH POLITICS are absurdly complicated. The Netherlands has a proportional representation system with no minimum threshold (most EU countries have one at 5%), ensuring a large number of parties and a constant churn of new ones. Voters are more evenly divided than ever between them. The prime minister, Mark Rutte, a brilliant and imperturbably cheerful tactician, has nonetheless managed to stay atop the heap for ten years, through three ruling coalitions. Last year he was hit with the covid-19 pandemic and with a child-benefits scandal that forced his government to resign just two months before an election. Yet there was never much doubt that when the votes were counted, he and his centre-right Liberal (VVD) party would again come in first. Preliminary results after the ballot on March 17th showed that the VVD had won 23%, well ahead of any other party.

Your browser does not support the

Enjoy more audio and podcasts on iOS or Android.

Second place, however, was a big surprise: D66, a left-leaning, liberal pro-European party. Its leader Sigrid Kaag, the current trade minister, is a former UN diplomat who presented herself as a candidate to become the Netherlands first female prime minister. D66 won 15%, one of the best results in its history. For his part, Mr Rutte moved towards the centre during the campaign, imitating left-wing parties rhetoric on social policy. And with the exception of the populist right, every party emphatically backed strong climate policies. For a country that spent last summer leading Europes frugal club of countries opposed to greater fiscal integration and nearly torpedoed the blocs 750bn ($900bn) covid-19 relief fund, the election may signal an important shift.

Mr Rutte owes his victory partly to approval of his handling of covid-19. The Netherlands has not done very wellinfection rates have been higher than in peers like Germany and Denmark, and track-and-trace and vaccination programmes have been slow. But most voters seemed not to mind, while others blamed the health minister, a Christian Democrat. During the campaign most of the opposition avoided the issue. As for the child-benefits scandal (in which the tax authority financially ruined thousands of parents over false accusations of fraud), it was not the VVD leader but the head of Labour who quit over his role in the affair.

Yet even for the teflon-coated Mr Rutte, forming a coalition will be difficult. Between 15 and 17 parties have made it into parliament, depending on the final count. Together, the VVD, D66 and the Christian Democrats have exactly half the seats. But the Christian Democrats vote share fell to just 10%, from 13% in the previous election. Their leader, Wopke Hoekstra, currently finance minister, had been billed as a contender for Mr Ruttes job but ran a clumsy campaign with no clear theme. They may prefer a spell in opposition to rebuild their strength, making Mr Ruttes task harder.

The populist right split into more parties, but grew overall. The Party for Freedom (PVV), led by the anti-Muslim firebrand Geert Wilders, had hoped to finish second but settled for third with 11%. A smaller far-right party, Forum for Democracy, grew to 5%, while a new one, JA21, won 2%. All are considered untouchable by the major parties. On the left, Labour, the GreenLeft party and the far-left Socialists were pummelled, each winning 5-6%. Mr Rutte is unlikely to want more than one of them in his cabinet.

That leaves the great swirl of small-to-tiny Dutch parties. They often forecast trends that take longer to materialise in other countries. Four years ago the arrival of Forum for Democracy seemed to augur a new wave of alt-right populism, but that party fractured in November over racism and anti-semitism. The Party for the Animals, the worlds first animal-rights party to win parliamentary representation, got 4%. Identity politics is going strong: DENK, a party representing Dutch Muslims, won 2%. Meanwhile Volt, a new pan-European liberal party that runs in every country in the EU, rose in the polls in the final weeks of the campaign and won 2%.

The VVDs turn to the centre and the success of D66 suggest the next Dutch government may be a tad less parsimonious in future EU fiscal debates. But much depends on which parties join the coalition. In 2017 forming a government took over six months. Mr Rutte says the covid-19 crisis requires more urgent action, and wants speedy negotiations with D66 and the Christian Democrats. But Ms Kaag wants to bring in more parties on the left. She will be happy to take her time.

This article appeared in the Europe section of the print edition under the headline "Suddenly Sigrid"

See the article here:
A Dutch election boosts both pro-EU liberals and the far right - The Economist

Tom Mulcair was the leader of the New Democratic Party of Canada between 2012 and 2017.

Since the Fall, Justin Trudeau has been champing at the bit to launch into a general election. In October, the Liberals threatened the opposition parties that if they insisted on pushing for a new committee to study the WE Charity scandal, it would be a confidence vote that could send Canadians to the polls. Trudeau wasnt bluffing. He couldnt decently have called an election just as the second wave of the pandemic was hitting, but if he could blame the opposition, he could get away with it.

Opposition parties live for the next election. That an election was seen by them as a potential threat and not a godsend, spoke volumes about the Liberals strength and their own lack of preparedness.

Recent polls have the Official Opposition Conservatives at 30 per cent. Even at his low water mark in terms of personal popularity, Stephen Harper still managed to get 32 per cent of the vote in the 2015 campaign.

In their elections held during the pandemic, both New Brunswicks Conservative and B.C.s NDP minority governments were rewarded with majorities. Saskatchewan returned its government with a renewed majority. The Federal Liberals want their turn.

Its easy to understand. After a year of restrictions and lockdowns, people are exhausted and want some hope. The parties that had been there to help, got rewarded. Thats an object lesson for the Conservatives as we head into a likely late Spring election. You have to have something other than frustrated grievances on offer.

The Liberals know that a Conservative Party below 30 per cent is their key to a majority victory. Over the past few weeks weve seen the Liberals check off boxes for promises on everything from a new language policy to guns. It hasnt all been smooth sailing but theyve been clearing the way.

When Chrystia Freeland announced that we would not have a budget in March, you could sense the trap being set and the ballot question come into focus: do you want to re-elect the Liberals, who took care of you and your family; or do you want the Conservatives, who will bring tough times and austerity?

Freelands yet-to-be-scheduled budget will have a big honking plan for post-pandemic stimulus spending and more deficits to go with it. The Conservatives will rail that the Liberals overspent to the tune of $100 billion prior to the pandemic and when it hitthe cupboard was bare. Theyll complain that we shouldve had a budget long before. Theyll ask how such amounts could ever be paid back. It will all be true and it will all be for naught.

When the U.S. can cough up a further $1.9 trillion to sail its way out of the post-pandemic doldrums, surely nothing Trudeau and Freeland can spend will appear worrisome by comparison.

A small clue as to the Conservative challenge could be seen in last weeks activities that commemorated one year of pandemic. There were solemn events in various capitals across the country, including Ottawa. Trudeau, always at his best when emoting, was striking just the right chord.

Then it was Erin OTooles turn. It was tone deaf. Instead of empathy, caring and emotion, he rhymed off the governments shortcomings. Dissing its performance on vaccines, making wobbly comparisons to the U.S. vaccine delivery (yep, they manufacture them, we dont). It was a recipe for a return to opposition.

The vaccine argument is over, that ship has sailed, Trudeau pulled off his Carbomite manoeuvre. Whatever had to be changed or added to the original contracts has been. We may have given up the right to sue, we may have greatly increased what we had to pay, it doesnt matter. People are getting vaccinated from coast-to-coast-to coast and well have largely moved on by June.

Somewhere the keeper of the Big Red Playbook is thumbing through the chapters covering the 1972 and 1974 Canadian general elections. In 72 Trudeau Pre lost his majority after just one term. The flamboyant object of Trudeaumania had been given a lesson in humility. He made friends with David Lewiss NDP to govern for a while, then opened a withering fire on them as he called a general election for the Summer of 1974. The rest is history and Trudeau would reign (almost) uninterrupted well into the 1980s.

Trudeau fils can hardly wait to try his hand and seems unconcerned about any opponent.

Jagmeet Singh has done a very good job preparing his troops for the election. His fundraising has been strong and his support remains at a historically solid 20 per cent. He has some very seasoned advisors who have deep government experience, notably in Manitoba. Theyre ready for battle and know the task ahead. Their deft handling of the Green Partys attempt to make up an insurrection in New Brunswick during the last campaign showed expertise. That bench strength will serve him well once again.

Tragically, some elements of his caucus have chosen to ride their anti-Israel hobby horse at this precise moment and it will take all of Singhs considerable skills not to let it become an unnecessary distraction. Even as historical elements from his Partys fringes try to ignite the issue, Singh will be required to waste precious energy and time explaining that talk of Israel apartheid and shmoozing with Jeremy Corbin are out of line with established NDP policy and out of synch with Canadian voters.

Annamie Paul remains an exceptional political figure in her own right. She knows environmental issues better than any party leader and is solid in debate in both French and in English. Unfortunately for her, like Banquos ghost, Elizabeth May still haunts the hallways and can be counted upon to scold the other parties and help Trudeau whenever she can, most recently berating their tomfoolery. Its difficult to see how that can help the new Green leader take on those same Liberals.

The Bloc is chugging along, leader Yves-Franois Blanchet has been careful not to make himself the author of the governments defeat, most recently backing the Liberals Bill on medically-assisted dying. His party is always at the unique whim of the electors in La Belle Province. The Bloc has bounced between its high as official opposition and its low of only four seats, since being founded. Blanchet will try his best not do anything to compromise the 30-plus ridings he won in the last campaign.

Blanchet will be vying for the same seats OToole hoped to compete for in Francois Legaults heartland outside Montral. Given OTooles underperformance to date, Bloc seats are probably at greater risk in the event of a Liberal resurgence. Legault could still prove to be a wild card, though, because he is ideologically close to the Conservatives. Legault also knows that a strong Bloc could help its provincial separatist sister, the Parti Quebecois, a rival for Legaults CAQ in next years general provincial election. Fifty shades of blue in the Quebec countryside.

Peter MacKay once famously said that Andrew Scheer had missed scoring on an empty net in failing to defeat Trudeau, despite the blackface scandal and other weaknesses.

That may not have been entirely fair.

What anyone facing Trudeau has to learn is that youre not running against a politician, youre running against a celebrity. Thats why going on the attack often backfires. Canadians may not like all of the Liberals policies or their politicians but they feel that theyve known Trudeau all his life and, like indulgent parents, at times seem willing to excuse even the worst behaviour.

This will be a campaign like no other. By any fair measure, the Liberals have done exceedingly well in managing the social parts of the pandemic but failed miserably at others, in particular protection at our borders.

Trudeau is facing a third potential finding by the ethics Commissioner that he broke the rules. Will Canadians be as forgiving as ever, or will it be three strikes youre out as far as some voters are concerned?

Watching the opposition parties whiff on their attempts to pin down the defence minister on issues of sexual misconduct in the military, and completely muff their most recent outing with the Keilburgers, its hard to conclude that Trudeaus confidence is misplaced.

More here:
What to expect from the Liberals: an election, ASAP - Maclean's

One day in March 2015, I sat in a theater in New York City and took careful notes as a series of personages led by Hillary Clinton and Melinda Gates described the dazzling sunburst of liberation that was coming our way thanks to entrepreneurs, foundations and Silicon Valley. The presentation I remember most vividly was that of a famous TV actor who rhapsodized about the wonders of Twitter, Facebook and the rest: No matter which platform you prefer, she told us, social media has given us all an extraordinary new world, where anyone, no matter their gender, can share their story across communities, continents and computer screens. A whole new world without ceilings.

Six years later and liberals cant wait for that extraordinary new world to end. Today we know that social media is what gives you things like Donald Trumps lying tweets, the QAnon conspiracy theory and the Capitol riot of 6 January. Social media, we now know, is a volcano of misinformation, a non-stop wallow in hatred and lies, generated for fun and profit, and these days liberal politicians are openly pleading with social medias corporate masters to pleez clamp a ceiling on it, to stop people from sharing their false and dangerous stories.

A reality crisis is the startling name a New York Times story recently applied to this dismal situation. An information disorder is the more medical-sounding label that other authorities choose to give it. Either way, the diagnosis goes, we Americans are drowning in the semiotic swirl. We have come loose from the shared material world, lost ourselves in an endless maze of foreign disinformation and rightwing conspiracy theory.

In response, Joe Biden has called upon us as a nation to defend the truth and defeat the lies. A renowned CNN journalist advocates a harm reduction model to minimize information pollution and deliver the rational views that the public wants. A New York Times writer has suggested the president appoint a federal reality czar who would help the Silicon Valley platform monopolies mute the siren song of QAnon and thus usher us into a new age of sincerity.

These days Democratic politicians lean on anyone with power over platforms to shut down the propaganda of the right. Former Democratic officials pen op-eds calling on us to get over free speech. Journalists fantasize about how easily and painlessly Silicon Valley might monitor and root out objectionable speech. In a recent HBO documentary on the subject, journalist after journalist can be seen rationalizing that, because social media platforms are private companies, the first amendment doesnt apply to them and, I suppose, neither should the American tradition of free-ranging, anything-goes political speech.

In the absence of such censorship, we are told, the danger is stark. In a story about Steve Bannons ongoing Trumpist podcasts, for example, ProPublica informs us that extremism experts say the rhetoric still feeds into an alternative reality that breeds anger and cynicism, which may ultimately lead to violence.

In liberal circles these days there is a palpable horror of the uncurated world, of thought spaces flourishing outside the consensus, of unauthorized voices blabbing freely in some arena where there is no moderator to whom someone might be turned in. The remedy for bad speech, we now believe, is not more speech, as per Justice Brandeiss famous formula, but an extremism expert shushing the world.

What an enormous task that shushing will be! American political culture is and always has been a matter of myth and idealism and selective memory. Selling, not studying, is our peculiar national talent. Hollywood, not historians, is who writes our sacred national epics. There were liars-for-hire in this country long before Roger Stone came along. Our politics has been a bath in bullshit since forever. People pitching the dumbest of ideas prosper fantastically in this country if their ideas happen to be what the ruling class would prefer to believe.

Debunking was how the literary left used to respond to Americas Niagara of nonsense. Criticism, analysis, mockery and protest: these were our weapons. We were rational-minded skeptics, and we had a grand old time deflating creationists, faith healers, puffed-up militarists and corporate liars of every description.

Censorship and blacklisting were, with important exceptions, the weapons of the puritanical right: those were their means of lashing out against rap music or suggestive plays or leftwingers who were gainfully employed.

What explains the clampdown mania among liberals? The most obvious answer is because they need an excuse. Consider the history: the right has enjoyed tremendous success over the last few decades, and it is true that conservatives capacity for hallucinatory fake-populist appeals has helped them to succeed. But that success has also happened because the Democrats, determined to make themselves the party of the affluent and the highly educated, have allowed the right to get away with it.

There have been countless times over the years where Democrats might have reappraised this dumb strategy and changed course. But again and again they chose not to, blaming their failure on everything but their glorious postindustrial vision. In 2016, for example, liberals chose to blame Russia for their loss rather than look in the mirror. On other occasions they assured one another that they had no problems with white blue-collar workers until it became undeniable that they did, whereupon liberals chose to blame such people for rejecting them.

And now we cluck over a lamentable information disorder. The Republicans didnt suffer the landslide defeat they deserved last November; the right is still as potent as ever; therefore Trumpist untruth is responsible for the malfunctioning public mind. Under no circumstances was it the result of the Democrats own lackluster performance, their refusal to reach out to the alienated millions with some kind of FDR-style vision of social solidarity.

Or perhaps this new taste for censorship is an indication of Democratic healthiness. This is a party that has courted professional-managerial elites for decades, and now they have succeeded in winning them over, along with most of the wealthy areas where such people live. Liberals scold and supervise like an offended ruling class because to a certain extent thats who they are. More and more, they represent the well-credentialed people who monitor us in the workplace, and more and more do they act like it.

What all this censorship talk really is, though, is a declaration of defeat defeat before the Biden administration has really begun. To give up on free speech is to despair of reason itself. (Misinformation, we read in the New York Times, is impervious to critical thinking.) The people simply cannot be persuaded; something more forceful is in order; they must be guided by we, the enlightened; and the first step in such a program is to shut off Americas many burbling fountains of bad takes.

Let me confess: every time I read one of these stories calling on us to get over free speech or calling on Mark Zuckerberg to press that big red mute button on our political opponents, I feel a wave of incredulity sweep over me. Liberals believe in liberty, I tell myself. This cant really be happening here in the USA.

But, folks, it is happening. And the folly of it all is beyond belief. To say that this will give the right an issue to campaign on is almost too obvious. To point out that it will play straight into the rights class-based grievance-fantasies requires only a little more sophistication. To say that it is a betrayal of everything we were taught liberalism stood for a betrayal that we will spend years living down may be too complex a thought for our punditburo to consider, but it is nevertheless true.

Read this article:
Liberals want to blame rightwing 'misinformation' for our problems. Get real - The Guardian