Mediaboss Marketing

Conservatives could rebrand as liberals, wrote Bill Kristol on Saturday, delighting the subset of the Internet that has long raged about neocon infiltrators and fake conservatives. But Kristol, editor at-large of The Weekly Standard and a one-time professor of political philosophy, meant something different. Seriously, he continued. Were for liberal democracy, liberal world order, liberal economy, [and] liberal education.

Is Kristol right? Some say yes, conservatives have been classical liberals all along. Truth in advertising was how Adrian Vermeule, the conservative Harvard law professor, characterized the American conservatives-as-liberals rebranding. An astute British observer had a knowing laugh: Is there anything funnier than watching right-wingers gradually realise theyre just liberals in real time?

This view, that American conservatism crossed the River Styx into philosophical liberalism with its embrace of the free market, is too clever by half. Really: Are we so devoted to Gladstone that we have learned nothing from Disraeli? So preoccupied with the Wealth of Nations that we have forsaken the Bible? All Locke, Smith, and Friedman, without Fortescue, Burke, and Kirk?

I dont think so. Any fair appraisal of the American conservative movement would not, like Scooby-Doos Mystery Team unmasking the ghost only to find a man underneath, find liberalism all the way down.

But does that mean conservatism is illiberal? In last Fridays Wall Street Journal, Israeli philosopher Yoram Hazony argues that theres no such thing as an Illiberal. This is true as far it goes. Describing populists, nationalists, and Nazis alike, illiberalism too often functions as a lazy catch-all for critics. This is similar to how Richard Dawkins and the New Atheists beat up on religion in the abstract, conflating dissimilar belief systems to gain an argumentative advantage. However, illiberalism is also a useful grouping of the alternatives to liberalism, our ancien regime. Conservatism, a certain type of traditionalist would hold, is just one of these alternatives, entirely distinct from liberalism.

Yet this too seems unlikely and unfair. Just refer back to Kristols list: Conservatives can comfortably embrace liberal democracy, liberal world order, liberal education, and arguably, a liberal economy. I would add liberal free speech, religious liberty, and the values of the American Founding. Id also note that Edmund Burke and Adam Smith were mutual admirers, viewing each other as allies not enemies.

What emerges is a complicated picture of conservatives as not wholly liberal yet not wholly illiberal either. Conservatives, it seems to me, are more than liberals; or, put it this way: We are liberals secondarily. By this I mean that we have commitments that precede our liberalism, and these commitments are themselves pre-liberal. Their authority is ancestral, not chosen. They are the first, the permanent things, and contra Locke, conservatives find their authority legitimate.

Conservatism, for example, may include liberal capitalism, but with a prior commitment to the dignity of the human person, the redeeming covenant of marriage, and the goods of family, faith, and community. Those are the foundations that we attempt to conserve, before we employ liberalism. It allows conservatives to escape from a self-undermining, pure libertarianism and pursue economics as if people mattered, as E. F. Schumacher put it.

Behind every conservative embrace of liberalism, there is a prior and pre-liberal commitment. We are for liberal free speech, but with a prior commitment to decency. We support liberal democracy, but with a prior commitment to justice, not just conflict de-escalation. We praise liberal education, but to save it from undermining itself with skepticism, we need a prior commitment to Truth.

Finally, conservatives defend liberal world order, but with a prior commitment to the nation, America. This is why U.S. conservatives (including Bill Kristol) overwhelmingly supported Brexit while Britains Liberal Democrats were its strongest opponents. And for much the same reason, Leo Strauss presciently identified Zionism as a conservative movement in 1956. As Strauss reminded the editors of National Review,

The moral spine of the Jews was in danger of being broken by the so-called emancipation which in many cases had alienated them from their heritage....Political Zionism was the attempt to restore that inner freedom, that simple dignity, of which only people who remember their heritage and are loyal to their fate, are capable....It helped to stem the tide of progressive levelling of venerable ancestral differences; it fulfilled a conservative function.

A full commitment to a liberal world order leads liberals to sacrifice national identity and sovereignty to international organizations such as the EU and U.N. It induces Jews and Christians to accept emancipation from religion and nationality in the hopes of joining Hillary Clintons global village or becoming Karl Marxs species-beings. This is why Prime Minister Trudeau insists that Canada has no core identity and President Macron rejects any single French culture. It is why President Obama, in so many words, dismissed American exceptionalism.

But American conservatives walk a different path. We understand that such a liberal order would be brittle; standing for nothing, it is left with no tool but force to secure obedience. But who would fight and die for the European Union? This sort of unrestrained liberalism risks losing the pre-liberal loyalties upon which our liberty and security truly rely.

Irving Kristol had a similar worry about liberalism in economics, the unrestrained free society of Friedman and Hayek. It is interesting to note what Hayek is doing, wrote the elder Kristol in 1970. He is opposing a free society to a just society because he says, while we know what freedom is, we have no generally accepted knowledge of what justice is. Kristol thought Hayeks characteristically liberal move was dangerous. Can men live in a free society if they have no reason to believe it is also a just society? he asked, I do not think so.

In order to recover that prior commitment to justice, which was so necessary to sustaining capitalism and liberty, Kristol recommended the long trek back to pre-modern political philosophy....Perhaps there we shall discover some of those elements that are most desperately needed by [our] spiritually impoverished civilization.

Accordingly, Irving Kristol would write in 1993 that religion was the most important pillar of modern conservatism. Vying for second and third were nationalism and economic growth. Liberalism surely requires all three elements to survive, but the first two are pre-liberal. Liberalism risks abandoning them in its fixation on abstract theorizing about universal, natural man, disconnected from faith, family, community, or nation.

There is certainly a tension, and more than one, in this conservative relationship to liberalism. We need liberalism to bring our nation freedom, wealth, power, and peace. But that same liberalism weakens the pre-liberal commitments that form its very foundation. Liberalism, then, risks undermining itself and therefore must be managed or rationed. As a parent might say, liberalism is good in moderation.

But even still, American conservatism is destined to be odd. If we are to be patriots, loyal to our founding ideals, then liberalism must be part of what we strive to conserve. This feature of American conservatism has led some thinkers, most notably Notre Dames Patrick Deneen, to urge a reevaluation and even a rejection of the American Founding. But such a rejection would threaten to render conservatism always confusing in a country founded by a revolution incoherent. Our venerable American difference, so obvious to observers such as Edmund Burke and Alexis de Tocqueville, is our passionate commitment to liberty. As American conservatives, defending liberalism is part of what it means to stand athwart History.

It would be un-conservative for Americans to abandon liberalism, just as it would be un-conservative to give in too fully to the liberal temptation. Calling ourselves liberals, as Bill Kristol suggested, would obscure what many of us really believe to be foundational. We dont need a Liberal Party or an Illiberal Party either, for that matter. Both are hasty attempts to rebrand the movement in response to the election of President Trump. Instead, let us focus our conservatism. It should cherish the spirit of liberty while defending the goods that come before and sustain it.

READ MORE: Is the GOP a Republican Party or a Conservative One? Rise of the Young Traditionalists Did William F. Buckleys Conservative Project End in Failure?

Elliot Kaufman is an editorial intern at National Review.

See original here:
American Conservatism & Liberalism: Is a Rebranding In Order ... - National Review

The high-profile stars of the Democratic Party's populist wing have steered the agenda their way on Capitol Hill this year, but the fight over the party's direction is far from settled.

As the party faces great expectations of big gains in the 2018 midterms, Democratic centrists are increasingly worried that the disproportionate share of attention shown to Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and the agenda pushed by his anti-establishment allies will do more harm than good.

That direction, the thinking goes, will energize liberals in places that Democrats are already winning by big margins. But it might drive away the voters needed to win inland races that will shape the House majority and determine which governors and state legislators are in charge of redrawing federal and state legislative districts early next decade.

Enter a group called New Democracy, a combination think tank and super PAC trying to reimagine the party's brand in regions where Democrats have suffered deep losses.

Leaders of the group want to focus on rebuilding in states where, during the Obama presidency, Democrats lost nearly 1,000 legislative seats and more than a dozen governor's mansions.

"Our most important work will be done outside of Washington," Will Marshall, founder of New Democracy, said in an interview.

The effort is publicly being labeled as sand"supplemental" to the emerging agenda being crafted on Capitol Hill, including the highly populist "Better Deal" proposal touted by party leaders in the House and Senate last month. But the new group's leaders do not see that agenda, including a push for lower prescription-drug prices, as particularly helpful to Democrats in exurban districts or key Midwestern states where President Trump won last year.

"That is an accurate reflection of many Democrats who represent deep blue districts. But it has limited appeal beyond the coasts," Marshall said.

To be sure, Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y., and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., have been trying to offer the sort of economic agenda items that can appeal to voters in Iowa as well as California, targeted at working class voters who abandoned Democrats for Trump.

But some centrists fear this populist message will get tuned out by heartland voters if it is accompanied by the party's increasing embrace of staunch liberal positions on cultural matters, from abortion rights to transgender issues.

Marshall helped launch similar efforts as Democrats lost three straight presidential elections in the 1980s, under the auspices of the Democratic Leadership Council and its offshoot, the Progressive Policy Institute.

Back then, operating under the New Democrat banner, the centrists helped create the ideas behind the 1992 presidential campaign of Bill Clinton, who became the first two-term Democrat in the White House since FDR.

New Democracy is taking shape under the failure of another Clinton - Hillary - whose loss to Trump helped solidify the already growing divide between Democrats and voters beyond large urban centers. Several dozen Democrats have signed on with New Democracy, including Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper, former Iowa governor Tom Vilsack, Pittsburgh Mayor Bill Peduto and Rep. Stephanie Murphy, Fla., a freshman rising star.

The two Democratic wings could be headed for a fierce clash over what the party needs to stand for in the wake of the stunning 2016 defeat. Sanders, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and other liberals have been making gains in getting congressional Democrats to support ideas such as a $15-an-hour minimum wage, some form of free college and demanding a full-frontal assault on big banks and big corporations.

So far, however, the college plans pushed by Sanders have not been in the "Better Deal." Senior Democratic advisers say that their effort has been to embrace economic populism without focusing on less politically popular liberal ideas.

The early portions of the "Better Deal" agenda tilt in the populist direction, with calls for stronger antitrust regulations and its tough talk on trade deals. Their belief is that white, working-class voters - millions of whom voted for Barack Obama but then switched to Trump - felt left behind in an economy with fewer manufacturing plants and those jobs went offshore or disappeared through automation.

Marshall and other Democrats fear that the populist tone is built around a negative message of casting blame and lacks the optimistic tones around which Bill Clinton and Barack Obama built their successful presidential bids.

Combine that negative tone with what critics say is a cultural elitism among urban liberals on social issues, and the centrist wing feels that voters in the heartland simply do not embrace the Democratic message anymore.

"The party's gotten a little too comfortable with its urban and coastal strongholds," Marshall said.

New Democracy's mission statement is even more blunt, warning that both parties have engaged in "a civically corrosive form of identity politics" and Democrats should "avoid vilifying people whose social views aren't as 'progressive' as we think they should be."

"For many working class and rural voters, the party's message seems freighted with elite condescension for traditional values (especially faith) and lifestyles," the group says.

The first big public event for New Democracy will come at an October summit hosted by Vilsack, who grew increasingly disenchanted last year with what he felt was the Clinton campaign's unwillingness to court rural voters.

In the 2008 elections, Obama won the Hawkeye State by nearly 10 percentage points, giving Iowa Democrats a 32-to-18 edge in the state Senate and a 56-to-44 edge in the state House. The governor, Chet Culver, was a Democrat. Four of the state's seven members of Congress were Democrats.

In 2016 Trump won Iowa by nearly 10 percentage points, Republicans now hold a comfortable nine-seat majority in the state Senate and a 19-seat majority in the state House. Trump appointed the state's popular Republican governor, Terry Brandstad, to be ambassador to China.

Iowa now sends just one Democrat to Congress.

That kind of shift happened across many states far away from the Atlantic and Pacific coasts over the past eight years.

It remains to be seen how much efforts like New Democracy really will supplement the party's efforts to reach new voters - and how much of this turns into a deep fight with the liberal wing.

New Democracy is reserving the right to wade into primaries to support moderate candidates, which could foreshadow the type of expensive primary battles Republicans have had the past eight years.

"Obama's success has masked the narrowing of the party's appeal," Marshall said, fearing that Democrats are not reaching beyond liberal elites. "Dogma seems to be in the driver's seat."

Visit link:
Centrist Democrats pushing back against Bernie Sanders, liberal wing - Chicago Tribune

Cities struggling to house their homeless are asking the federal government to rethink its cornerstone homelessness program amid concerns about burdensome reporting requirements and inadequate funding.

An internal government report calls for the so-called Homelessness Partnering Strategy to provide different levels of funding to rural communities, which must house people over vast areas, and to urban centres struggling with skyrocketing real estate prices.

The issue of red tape bogging down the funding also came up repeatedly in meetings last year that were detailed in a briefing note to a senior official at Employment and Social Development Canada.

Cities asked the government to simplify reporting requirements about how money was being used, or provide extra cash to cover administrative costs, said the note, obtained by The Canadian Press under the Access to Information Act.

The homelessness strategy isnt up for renewal until 2019, but Social Development Minister Jean-Yves Duclos has asked officials to begin work now in order to have it ready sooner, said spokesman Mathieu Filion.

Those in the anti-poverty sector expect funding will stay the same under the revamped strategy, which will likely emphasize prevention, something experts have promoted during the Liberals time in office.

A separate briefing note to Duclos suggests that officials wanted the strategy to help fund clinical supports for so-called housing first clients, including teams of doctors, nurses, psychiatrists and substance abuse specialists.

The federal government cant directly fund such supports because they fall under provincial jurisdiction.

The Liberal governments first budget in 2016 set aside $111.8-million over two years for the strategy to give cities more flexibility in battling homelessness.

Those municipal strategies will be reshaped next year following the second federally organized point-in-time count of the homeless population in 59 cities, up from 32 that took part in the first count last year.

An internal government report says some cities had problems spending the 2016 money during the last fiscal period, which ended in March, because the cash wasnt available at the start of the fiscal year.

At a mid-year meeting about the money, cities big and small told federal officials that the strategys focus on housing first find housing and services for people right away, rather than requiring them to seek treatment first was becoming more difficult to meet.

Larger urban centres reported that a lack of available affordable housing options, including market rental units, was a major hindrance. In rural and remote communities, the challenge was housing people over large geographic areas.

Funding was also a problem in Aboriginal communities.

Indigenous leaders said the housing first approach didnt recognize the unique needs of their communities, including the need for multi-generational housing and communal homes.

Jenny Gerbasi, president of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, said the report illustrates the challenges with the federal strategy, which is also likely to play a key role in the national housing strategy the Liberals will release later this year.

Cities need to be given the maximum flexibility needed to use federal funds on local needs, including deciding the extent to which they deliver programs with a housing first approach, Gerbasi said.

Three decades after the approach was first introduced, an international body of research suggests it works. In 2008, the federal government funded the largest such study a five-year examination of more than 2,200 previously homeless people across five cities.

It found those who received housing first help retained housing at much higher rates than those who received what investigators called treatment as usual, and scored higher on measures of quality of life.

As a result of the study, housing first became a focus of the Homelessness Partnering Strategy.

A follow-up study last year found a significant gap between current federal and provincial funding and what was provided in the original study period.

Go here to see the original:
Cities urge Liberals to rethink homeless strategy - The Globe and Mail

Updated August 11, 2017 13:20:07

Labor has turned to its most powerful union for cash ahead of the South Australian election in March, while the Liberal Party is relying on financial support from two MPs and an eccentric Chinese mining magnate.

The latest disclosure returns released by the Electoral Commission show the SA Division of the Liberal Party received $1.9 million, more than double Labor's $969,000 in receipts for the six months to the end of June.

Labor's biggest donor was the Shop Distributive and Allied Employees Association (SDA), with $238,295.07, almost twice the combined donations and affiliation fees which came from the rest of the union movement.

The SDA is the dominant union in the right-wing of Labor politics in SA, spawning the careers of Cabinet ministers such as Tom Koutsantonis, Jack Snelling, Zoe Bettison and Peter Malinauskas.

Both major parties require their state MPs to tip part of their salaries into political campaigns.

But two Liberals have made significant personal donations, beyond their MP levy.

Deputy Leader Vickie Chapman appears to have donated $20,000, in addition to the $7,493.34 contribution from her parliamentary salary.

Liberal deputy leader in the Legislative Council, Michelle Lensink, appears to have made a $10,000 donation, on top of her $5,854.20 salary contribution.

MP levy contributions from some Liberal MPs, including retiring members, have not been disclosed, indicating they are below a $5,091 disclosure threshold.

For the Liberal coffers, retired Codan founder Ian Wall and his wife Pam made a $210,000 donation in June, while AusGold Mining Group, headed by Chinese mining mogul Sally Zou, gave the party $143,664, including a single donation of $88,888 in April.

Eight is considered lucky by the Chinese.

Ms Zou has been a regular donor to the Liberals, even setting up a company called the Julie Bishop Glorious Foundation without the Foreign Minister's knowledge.

Her company ran two full-page ads in The Advertiser on Friday, including one on page three to welcome Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull to Adelaide.

He is expected to attend the Liberal Party's annual general meeting on Saturday.

"Fellow Australian, Friend and Prime Minister of Our Nation," the advertisement read.

"Life is a journey down a river a current can sweep you into the path of others or take you on branches you never expected.

"Meeting people by chance can be one of serendipity, a happy surprise.

"In our years on Earth, we cannot foresee who we'll be privileged enough call our friends; such is the excitement of life."

In contrast to the Liberals, Labor's corporate sponsors were more modest.

The ALP collected $76,052.40 from its corporate fundraising arm, SA Progressive Business, which charges business for sponsorship and raises funds from event attendances.

Bank SA, a part of Westpac, gave $10,000 to the ALP just days before the Labor Government announced in the state budget the biggest banks would face a levy, expected to raise $370 million.

The money was sponsorship for a post-budget lunch featuring Treasurer Tom Koutsantonis, which bank executives later boycotted because of their fury about the planned tax.

Other Labor donors included Beach Energy, Fairmont Homes Group, SA Power Networks and Employers Mutual (EM) each $12,000.

EM manages workers' compensation claims on behalf of ReturnToWork SA, which also gave $12,000.

The Australian Hotels Association donated to both major parties $13,000 to the Liberals and $12,000 to Labor.

Neither the Greens nor the Dignity Party reported any funds above the disclosure cap.

The Australian Conservatives and Nick Xenophon's SA Best were not required to submit returns because they were not registered as parties in time to be included in that half-year.

Topics: states-and-territories, government-and-politics, political-parties, alp, liberals, adelaide-5000, sa

First posted August 11, 2017 13:15:54

See the rest here:
Liberals' donations double Labor Party's ahead of SA election - ABC Online

Members of a leftist group backed by deep-pocketed unions loudly protested outside of Republican Congressman Jason Lewiss home in Woodbury, Minnesota on Wednesday, spurring frightened neighbors to call the police.

The group, Take Action Minnesota, which is funded by SEUI and other unions and progressive groups, chanted and protested outside of Lewiss home, where his wife and two daughters live, over proposed cuts to Medicaid and other entitlement programs that are driving the United States deeper into debt.

After attempting to deliver a letter to Lewis in person at his home, Take Action protestors then stood on his porch and his driveway as two elderly women explained how they rely on Medicaid for about five minutes. They then began to chant and yell rallying cries as they waved signs.

When care givers are under attack, what do we do? The young woman prompted. Stand up! Fight back! the other protestors responded.

As they walked away, protestors yelled: Well be back!

The group streamed their protest via Facebook Live.

In a statement posted on his Facebook page, Lewis said the demonstration prompted his neighbor to call the police.

Appalled to find out my home and private property were invaded today by protestors while I was working in my congressional district. Suffice it to say it is more than a bit disturbing to get a call from your neighbor saying his daughters were afraid and called him to contact the police.

In a statement, Take Action said they showed up at his home because Lewis hasnt done a town hall event to talk about the proposed cuts.

For months, constituents have asked for a town hall, Take Action said in a statement. His constituents would rather have a conversation at a town hall, than deliver a letter to his door.

Town hall events featuring Republican congressman have become increasingly dangerous. In May, police escorted two attendees at a North Dakota town hall event after they got physical with a Republican congressman.

Earlier this year, the Utah Republican Party issued a statement urging GOP Congressmen to delay town hall meetings after numerous violent actions took place at previous events.

This isnt just immature anymore; this is a dangerous ramping up of rhetoric that already has one of my House colleagues in rehab from a vicious attack, Lewis said, referring to Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.), who nearly died from a gunshot wound inflicted by a crazed Bernie Sanders supporter. Beyond increasing security measures, we are investigating what action to take. But this dangerous targeting of people, staffs, associates and now families must stop. And stop now.

See the article here:
Watch These Liberals Protest Outside Of A Congressman's Home Where His Wife, Daughters Live - The Federalist