Archive for the ‘Liberals’ Category

Don’t be distracted by liberalism debate – Mail and Guardian

I used to enjoy a good ideological sparring. You could almost wake me up in the middle of the night for a fight about ethical theory or big ideas in political philosophy.

These days, I flip between that keenness and deciding which debates to prioritise.Its not because I now lack curiosity about ethical and political theory, but because I do not have a students penchant to ignore the question of how best to divvy up increasingly limited time.

In my first book, A Bantu In My Bathroom, I argued that black people are as capable of racism as white people are. I did so because, first, it is a view I hold and, second, I was and still am of the view that there are seriously flawed psychological and normative errors embedded in the counterview that denies my position.

Nowadays, I have almost no appetite, unless I am pushed very hard, to explain and defend my view. I decline most invitations to discuss with fellow black people whether we can be racist. This is because my priorities have shifted.

I think the elimination of white supremacy in the world is a far more urgent goal to work towards than a footnoted definitional debate between black interlocutors on an interesting theoretical question about the elasticity of the terms racism and racist.

What it means to live in an anti-racist society and how we will achieve that end-goal are questions of more important political and intellectual inquiry at this point in my life. The contingent world history of racism is a history of anti-black racism and white supremacy, undeniably so, and we had better get on with the intellectual and activist labour to focus on fighting white supremacy. That is why I have semi-retired myself from the debate on whether black people can be racist.

I am beginning to feel the same about debates on liberalism although Im not quite as jaded about this subject. But I am quickly heading in that direction.

Here is why. We need to ask whether any political party has the ideas, concrete plans, leadership and other skills to rescue this country from the perpetual brink of disaster. Who can ensure that millions of poor black people have opportunities to become economically self-sufficient and to live with dignity, and perhaps even to flourish?

I think the theoretical debate about liberalism is becoming a useful and intentional distraction by those who do not want to come out as anti-poor and anti-black.

Lets be honest about the liberalism debate in the South African context. What we really want to know is whether the Democratic Alliance should be a liberal party (still) and, if so, what kind of liberalism it should punt? Much of the criticism levelled against former party leader Mmusi Maimane is that he moved the party away from its traditional roots.

This whole debate is dishonest. First, we should not give Maimane credit he doesnt deserve. He is a very nice guy, but he couldnt write anything near an impressive undergraduate exam paper on liberalism or political philosophy more generally. To accuse him of moving the DA intentionally away from its traditional roots is to impute to him a grand ideological project he never had. He was weak in part because he was ideologically inchoate. Maimane enjoyed political titles and nominal power. This is what drove him, not deep political thought.

Second, there is a more fundamental dishonesty by those who clamour for the DA to return to its imagined classical liberal roots. This is all word play deployed by mostly a bunch of conservative and libertarian men who dont have the guts to say they dont care much for an interventionist state that takes social security seriously, and redistributive race-based policies aimed at redressing past injustices. They end up writing endlessly obscure thought pieces on platforms the average voter doesnt go to or care for, navel gazing about well-established political philosophy debates on liberalism.

We should not let them get away with drawing us into a false public debate about political philosophy. A more useful debate would be about specific policies and issues such as land, inequality, poverty, affirmative action and, yes, identity.

As a voter, I want to know from any politician answers to such questions as: How would you grow the economy? How would you stem job losses? How would you help us become less unequal? What is your position on the land question? Does race matter? Why or why not? How would you go about dismantling the remnants of apartheid spatial planning? How would you mend state-owned enterprises? What, if any, should the future role of state-owned enterprises be in our political economy? What is your view on the welfare state? To what extent, if any, should we trust markets to help us ensure access to education, healthcare and other primary social goods? How do we reduce the gap between constitutional normativity and daily battles along the legal value chain that suggest we have not yet entrenched the rule of law, and constitutional values, firmly enough?

I appreciate that ideological commitments can guide one in answering these more specific questions. That is partly why Im not yet completely disinterested in a debate about the future of liberalism. I have argued before that one can be both liberal and black, and defended my preferred view of liberalism, which is one that centres egalitarianism.

As I get older I no longer have time for humouring false debates. The bull in this debate is the dishonest motive of way too many people who enter the liberalism debate not so much to rehearse their theoretical convictions (which would be fine) but to avoid revealing their views on the practical issues that are of material and immediate concern to millions of South Africans still living on the margins of society.

This leaves me somewhat discombobulated. I do think liberalism can serve us. But only liberal egalitarianism can do so. As a student of philosophy, I am also annoyed by non-experts, of all backgrounds, who fail to appreciate the complex taxonomy of liberal positions, often arguing as if there is one way of being liberal when liberals routinely and richly disagree with one another. If I was a DA politician (which I do not, nor ever desired to be), I would push for a kind of liberal egalitarianism that is rooted in the specific experiences of black people, the survivors of white supremacist and apartheid economics and politics.

Why would that make me liberal? Because freedom and individualism matter to me as fundamental values worth foregrounding, and social structures such as family, church and other group-level entities, can be oppressive when autonomy isnt cherished, and protected by a liberal state.

But our individualism can only flourish when we have the goods with which to develop and express our individual selves. That is why Im still convinced a liberal defence of a strong state is coherent. Liberalism must be in service of egalitarianism and the state should be arranged to achieve these outcomes.

The political left in this country are wrong to assume they alone have the political tools with which to articulate a caring and responsive state that pays attention to the history of anti-black racism and the phenomenology of still miserable contemporary black life.

But, when all is said and done, this theoretical battle must not be entered into with people who want to pull wool over our eyes. The salient question right now for South Africa isnt whether there is a future for liberalism but whether those who call themselves liberals are willing to sign up for a political programme of action that aims to get us to an anti-racist society in which black people in particular can enjoy living meaningful lives just as our white brothers and sisters have always enjoyed. That, and that question alone, should be the one we should wake each other up to debate.

Debating liberalism at the theoretical level is as distracting as an endless footnoted debate about whether the label racism can apply to Andile as well as to Steve.

Read more:
Don't be distracted by liberalism debate - Mail and Guardian

Tories’ ‘made-in-Canada’ recession narrative is only resonating because the Liberals have a lousy script – Financial Post

On the weekend before Christmas, Bill Morneau accused the Official Opposition of talking us into a recession.

I think its a little bit irresponsible of the Conservatives to be making people more anxious, the finance minister said on Question Period, CTVs Sunday political talk show.

Morneau probably was thinking of one Conservative in particular. Pierre Poilievre, the Opposition finance critic, spent much of December talking about a made-in-Canada recession, even though almost no professional forecaster had predicted one.

Im aware of your text-book definition, Poilievre said in Ottawa on Dec. 17 after a reporter described a recession as two consecutive quarters of economic contraction and asked him to produce evidence that such a scenario was likely. But I will say as Reagan said: A recession is when your neighbour loses his job. A depression is when you lose your job. And a recovery is when Justin Trudeau loses his job. Thank you very much.

Then Poilievre walked away. If hed had a mic, he would have dropped it.

It makes you wonder whether the news reflects sentiment or drives it?

Morneau, a former Bay Street executive backed by the Finance Department, might be a more reliable narrator on economic matters than Poilievre, a 40-year-old career politician with a penchant for hyperbole.

But that doesnt matter if you dont have a convincing story to tell. Poilievre is winning because he has adapted a narrative that has been resonating with people since short-term interest rates climbed higher than longer-term bond yields earlier this year. Narratives get lodged in our heads and they dont go away, even when contradicted by reality.

It makes me nervous, Simon De Baene, co-founder and chief executive of Montreal-based software developer GSoft, said earlier this month when I asked him about the possibility of a recession. De Baene had just taken me on a tour of GSofts newly renovated and expanded work space and he said there was no sign of a slowdown in his order books. Still, we plan for the worst, he said.

Economists are beginning to produce compelling evidence of the medias ability to generate what Nobel laureate Robert Shiller calls sentiment shocks.

Both The Economist and The Financial Times ranked Shillers new book, Narrative Economics, as one of the best of 2019. The Yale economics professor compiled years of analysis and research to assert that investment is just as likely to be driven by the zeitgeist as dispassionate analysis.

Narratives are the dominant explanation for the strength of a recession, Shiller told the Wall Street Journal earlier this month. The Great Depression was great because of the narrative. Franklin Roosevelt said all we had to fear was fear itself. That phrase is remembered by many people. And it isnt just fear. Other emotions, like anger, might change the economy and markets.

The stories behind sentiment shocks neednt be true or plausible.

Jerome Powell, chair of the U.S. Federal Reserve, insists that pressure from President Donald Trump has no effect on policy and the Feds track record suggests thats true.

And yet Trumps harassment of Powell on Twitter causes traders to reassess the path for interest rates. Earlier this month, the Bank of Canada published research by Antoine Camous, an economist at the University of Manheim, and Dmitry Matveev, a staff economist at the Canadian central bank, that shows that when Trump tweets about the Fed, the price of contracts linked to the U.S. benchmark shifts to reflect a higher probability of an interest-rate cut.

Last year, the International Monetary Fund released a working paper by a team of economists that had used more than 4.5 million Reuters articles published between 1991 and 2015 to create a news-based sentiment index. They found that the tone of news robustly predicts daily returns on stock markets in both advanced economies and emerging markets.

The relationship still isnt entirely clear, but the project already shows that monitoring news tone in real time is a very effective way to capture sudden changes in investor sentiment that would not be captured otherwise, Damien Puy, an IMF economist and one of the authors, wrote in a blog post that the fund published on Dec. 16.

It makes you wonder whether the news reflects sentiment or drives it?

David Rosenberg, the one prominent Bay Street economist who thinks a recession is likely, receives an outsized amount of attention, in part because multiple outlets, including the Financial Post, give him a platform for his bearish writings.

The news business craves drama, so its hard to resist the tragic overtones of an economic downturn. The pursuit of tension also results in false equivalency, with outliers getting as much (or more) ink as the consensus. So its easy to game coverage.

But what ultimately is hurting Morneau is that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has handed him such a lousy script. The finance ministers mandate letter calls on him to reduce debt as a percentage of gross domestic product, but also to invest in people, while at the same time preserve fiscal firepower. Even if all of that is technically possible, it reads like fantasy.

But an old-fashioned recession narrative? That makes sense to people. And when the audience becomes too big, the story becomes true.

Financial Post

Email: kcarmichael@nationalpost.com | Twitter:

See more here:
Tories' 'made-in-Canada' recession narrative is only resonating because the Liberals have a lousy script - Financial Post

The Liberal Democrats are needed now more than ever – The New European

PUBLISHED: 10:23 04 January 2020 | UPDATED: 10:23 04 January 2020

The New European

Lib Dem MEPs on stage at the Liberal Democrats conference. Photograph: Jonathan Brady/PA.

PA Wire/PA Images

Email this article to a friend

To send a link to this page you must be logged in.

Become a Supporter

The New European is proud of its journalism and we hope you are proud of it too. If you value what we are doing, you can help us by making a contribution to the cost of our journalism

Andrew Adonis asks whether the Liberal Democrats now have a reason to exist. The answer is plain: now more than ever.

It may pain him to acknowledge the fact, but the Lib Dems (and Liberal Party before them) have been constant in their support of the European project since it began, through periods when his own party were the sceptics to the present, when Labour has been taken over by a Euro-doubtful hard left.

The arrogance of his claim that "if the majority of social democrats were where they belong, in the Labour Party, we would have a more equal two-party system" beggars belief. If the majority of social democrats were where they belong, in the Liberal Democrats, we'd have a more plausible pro-EU opposition to Johnson. It's hardly the Lib Dems' fault the Tories demolished Labour's red wall.

Roger Hughes

London

No, Andrew Adonis (TNE #175), the Lib Dems should not disband and join Labour.

I loathe the Tories but I live in a rural area where Labour has always been an irrelevance. I joined the Liberals in 1979 and all through the nightmare of the Thatcher years we gained more council seats at each election, eventually won control of the council and took the parliamentary seat in 1997. Lib Dems can beat the Tories in areas like this, Labour can't.

As for joining Labour, I wouldn't want to be a member of a party that allows members of the Socialist Workers Party not only to join but to control it; or of a party whose leadership ignored a party conference vote to campaign for a second referendum on Brexit; or for a party controlled by Len McCluskey, Seumas Milne and their sock puppets Corbyn, Long-Bailey or whoever succeeds him.

Like Andrew Adonis, I hope Keir Starmer wins the Labour leadership but I am not holding my breath.

Richard Palmer

Pucklechurch

You might have expected Labour's catastrophic failure to prompt a little humility, but no. Instead Andrew Adonis is calling for the Lib Dems to be disbanded.

Inconvenient fact: while Labour's vote collapsed, the Lib Dems' increased by three times more than the Tories'. But because of our undemocratic electoral system, the Lib Dems actually ended up with fewer MPs.

The Lib Dems have more than 2,500 local councillors in England and Wales. Does Andrew Adonis want them to be forced to join the Labour or Conservative parties too? And to hell with those who voted for them?

Oh and by the way, does he want the Greens disbanded as well, and what about other Remain parties like Plaid and the SNP?

If this is the best Labour can do, they're going to be in the wilderness for a very long time.

John Withington

London NW1

The election was resoundingly lost not by the Lib Dems but by a spiteful and incompetent Labour party which ran full-on campaigns against us in all Lib-Con marginals, apparently more interested in preventing defectors like Chuka Umunna and Luciana Berger from beating the Tories than actually winning the election. They also ran a concerted social media campaign against Jo Swinson herself.

Labour only win when the Lib Dems take some seats off the Tories which they cannot. A smart Labour Party would have sought to maximise this effect. Instead, they left their heartlands undefended and eschewed targeting other than to stymie Lib Dem success. This was a recipe for total disaster.

Ludovic Tolhurst-Cleaver

Trafford Lib Dems

- The fight may have changed but the cause remains. Buy The New European every Thursday to read the full mailbag of letters. To have your say email letters@theneweuropean and join our readers' group for more debate.

The New European is proud of its journalism and we hope you are proud of it too. We believe our voice is important - both in representing the pro-EU perspective and also to help rebalance the right wing extremes of much of the UK national press. If you value what we are doing, you can help us by making a contribution to the cost of our journalism.

Read the original post:
The Liberal Democrats are needed now more than ever - The New European

Letter: Liberalism destroys everything it touches – INFORUM

How in the world, the editors ask, can a professing Christian vote for and support President Trump? First off, the alternative was absolutely unthinkable. The Clintons had taken politics of personal advantage to an entirely new level. Bill, with a wink and that crooked smile, but Hillary has that icy stare and her cackling laugh. Had she been awarded a session in the Oval Office, she would have even accelerated Obamas openly anti-American maneuverings (he called it fundamental transformation), further eroding American distinction and diminishing international standing and domestic safety. The Clintons have demonstrated to their own personal advantage that government employment and positioning is the surest way to guarantee economic advantage and a measure of prominence, however fleeting. Unthinkable.

Curiously, most folks citing selected Scripture when criticizing the behavior of others, carefully edit the passage, skew the meaning and ignore the general message of Gods invitation to a relationship with him. Welcoming the stranger, or being kind to the oppressed, or helping the poor are surely bits of good advice mentioned in Scripture, yet most often suggested for someone else. Here again, show medont just tell me.

Trump policies have helped more poor by providing jobs (7 million) and encouragement all across the spectrum than all the government give-away programs of the last 60 years. Obama said it, Trump did it. Talks easy. Doing is hard. And none of this is possible without safety. Trump has bolstered the military and encouraged the troops, catching up a bit from years of diminished budgets and outright disdain.

Refugees and migrants, especially illegals, are much in the news and apparently in the hearts of noisy liberals. What about staying legal and enforcing some semblance of law and decorum? Generosity and assimilation are possible only from a position of strength and commitment, but todays liberal anything goes is a recipe for chaos. (Witness California and New York, both run by liberals)

Besides, if America and Capitalism are so despicable, why does most of the oppressed world want to come here, and sneak in if possible? Many refugees are being oppressed and even killed in their own countries by a belief system which is synonymous with death and oppression, yet truth cant even be mentioned lest one be called a bigot or worse.

Islam is incompatible with freedom, Syed Sajid Ahmad's columns notwithstanding. Why allow and encourage something known to be destructive? Human effort (works) have proven inadequate, yet mankind insists hell find the answer. Trump is the realist, and is telling the truth for the benefit of the country, even though liberals hate it and him. Liberalism destroys everything it touches.

Read more:
Letter: Liberalism destroys everything it touches - INFORUM

Parent and grandparent reunification program reopening postponed as Liberals look at new system – CBC.ca

The Liberal government is postponingthenext round of its widely criticized family reunificationprogram while it looks into developing a new intake process, according to a statement fromImmigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada.

The program allows Canadian citizens and permanent residents to apply to bring grandparents and parents to Canada.Critics have called the selection process unfair sinceall of theonline application spots were snapped up in just minutes earlier this year.

In its Monday statement, Immigration Canada said it's delaying the 2020 round as it works on a new intake system.

"This means that the opportunity to express interest in sponsoring a parent or grandparent will not take place on Jan. 1, 2020," reads the statement.

"Further information about the expected launch date and 2020 intake process will be available in the new year. This will give all interested sponsors the same opportunity to submit an interest-to-sponsor form and a fair chance to be invited to apply."

Jamie Liew, an immigration lawyer and professor at the University of Ottawa, said it's upsetting news for families who were hoping to apply this time around.

"It's a significant announcement in the fact it will impact a lot of people who have a lot of hope this time of year," she said.

"It is a significant thing that people who may have missed out on their opportunity last year are waiting for the opportunity this year. And to have that postponed must be disappointing for people who are separated from their families."

A spokesperson for Immigration Minister Marco Mendicino said the departmentwanted to give families aheads up that the application process won't be open inJanuary as it has beenin the last few years.

MathieuGenestsaid the government is "looking at all options" as it reviews the intent-to-sponsor form.

In a follow-up statement to CBC News on Monday night, Immigration Canada said the movewas made in"an effort to provide the best client service possible" and noted it"will begin the intake of new applications as early as possible in 2020."

Earlier this year, the government accepted 27,000 submissions for sponsoring parents or grandparentsand confirmed that more than 100,000 people had attempted to access an online form to express interest.

The online form opened Jan. 28 at noon ET, and closed less than nine minutes later,a processthatleft tens of thousands of people frustrated and furious because they couldn't access the form or fill it out fast enough.

Conservative Immigration Critic Peter Kent said in a statement Monday night, "It's clear that the Liberal'sclumsy and unfairprocessoffamily reunification demands a complete overhaul. First the Liberals instituted a lottery system, leaving family reunification to the 'luck of the draw.' Then, those following the rules were given minutes to submit their forms, and now they are left wondering when they can even apply to see their families again."

Liewsaid any reviewshould look at increasing the intake numbers.

"The system is not meeting the demand. That's the main problem," she said. "There's a greater interest and need to meet the expectations that we promote."

The Liberal government adopted the first-come, first-served online application system this year after scrapping a controversial lottery system for reuniting immigrant families. Thelottery system was contentious, with critics claiming it essentially gambledwith peoples' lives.

Thatprevious lottery process itself replaced another first-in system. Itwas unpopular because it led to long lineupsat the doors of the processing centre overnight and had people paying place-holders in the queue to deliver applications prepared by consultants or lawyers.

In May,CBC reported that the federal government made a secret settlement to quash two lawsuits that claimed the online application processwas flawed and unfair.

To resolve the group litigation, the government awarded at least 70 coveted spots to applicants, allowing them to sponsor their parents' or grandparents'immigration to Canada.

More here:
Parent and grandparent reunification program reopening postponed as Liberals look at new system - CBC.ca