Archive for the ‘Liberals’ Category

Neil Buchanan: Liberals Should Stop Flagellating Themselves – Newsweek

This article first appeared on the Dorf on Law site.

The 2016 presidential election was almost seven months ago. Why are liberals still so willing to blame themselvesand especially each otherfor Trump's narrow victory in the Electoral College?

The narrative that will not die is that "real Americans" abandoned the disdainful, sneering Democrats. Those coastal elites who say and think nasty things about non-latte-drinking regular folk got what was coming to them, we hear over and over again.

Subscribe to Newsweek from $1 per week

And it is not conservatives who are saying those things. It is liberals themselves who are engaged in this orgy of self-doubt and intramural finger-pointing.

To be sure, it is a sign of maturity to be able to consider the possibility that what went wrong was one's own fault. The opposite of introspective doubt is, after all, stubborn self-righteousnessmost obviously personified in the orange-hued blowhard who is currently occupying the White House.

But when liberals think about the 2016 results, the now-standard response is to say, "We screwed up. They hate us, and it's our own fault." Again, there is more than a bit about that attitude that is admirable. It also can prevent people from saying, "Well, there was nothing we could have done. So there's nothing that we can do now, either, I guess."

Yes, it is a good thing to be able to look in the mirror and ask tough questions. But that does not mean that people will always give themselves the best answers. Liberals need to stop beating themselves up in order to be able to think clearly about what has happened and what to do next.

Unsurprisingly, Hillary Clinton has figured this out. Even less surprisingly, people still want to yell at Hillary Clinton for things that she did not actually say or do.

Clinton's bottom line is quite simply that she and her campaign made a lot of mistakes, but those mistakes are not why she lost. Russia and Comey are explanation enough (as, we should recall, is the press's ridiculous treatment of Clinton throughout her career).

Even so, when Clinton says, "Here are the things that went wrong, here are the ones that I could control, whereas here are the ones that made the difference," what happens? She is faulted by a liberal writer for having "found plenty of non-Hillary Clinton things to blame for her 2016 loss." Sick burn!

Clinton is apparently supposed to have taken a public stance that says, "It's all me. I'm not allowed to blame anyone else, internally or externally. My fault. Sorry." That is not merely imposing an expectation on her that would not be imposed on anyone else, but it conveniently allows liberals to say that even their own supposed sins are really Hillary's fault.

A recent op-ed by a left-leaning law professor in The New York Times was titled: "The Dumb Politics of Elite Condescension." To her credit, the author rightly rejects the idea that "identity politics" was the Democrats' problem last year. She even lays out a decent policy-driven case for winning future elections.

Even so, we quickly learn that the problem with liberals is that we are just so snotty toward working-class people. Examples? The author writes: "We hear talk of 'trailer trash' in 'flyover states' afflicted by 'plumbers butt' open class insults that pass for wit."

Flagellation of Saint Jerome dated 1476, tempera and gold on panel, Art Institute of Chicago. Art Institute of Chicago

In other words, this is the standard story in which Real Americans are supposedly so fragile that they will vote to put a lying, unqualified, bigoted, sexist threat to the planet in the White House because they cannot bear to be told that their states are uninteresting to outsiders. How is that not a condescending narrative?

I must say that after all these months of reading similar articles by self-flagellating liberals, I continue to be surprised by the mildness of the litany of insults that supposedly motivated Trump's voters. The fact is that adults are much less snowflake-y than many liberals seem to think.

The weirdest part of the op-ed, however, was when the author returned to the theme as follows: "In some cities, a construction boom is hobbled by a lack of plumbers. We might ameliorate this problem if we stopped talking about plumbers butt." Taken literally, that is laughable. Even as an attempt at something that would pass for wit, however, it is simply bizarre.

Perhaps the worst error that liberals continue to make is to reinforce the false narrative about Hillary Clinton's now-infamous comment about the "basket of deplorables" during the campaign. As I noted in the immediate aftermath of that comment, it at first appeared that the phrase would have a limited shelf-life and would soon become one of those phrases that political geeks use knowingly.

Instead, liberals have piled on and reinforced the false narrative that the Trump campaign (especially Mike Pence) used to portray Clinton's comment as proof of liberals' condescension.

For example, that law professor who is oddly obsessed with plumbers' posteriors added this comment: "This condescension affects political campaigns, as in Hillary Clintons comment about 'deplorables' and Barack Obamas about people who 'cling to guns or religion.'"

Maybe Obama's comment was evidence of condescension, and maybe not. It certainly did not cost him the election. But it is worth reminding ourselvesyet againthat Clinton's comment was in fact the opposite of condescension. In fact, she was doing exactly what her detractors from the left say she should have been doing.

Recall that Clinton coined her memorable phrase when she was trying to explain why Trump's campaign continually bobbed to the surface after multiple times in which it had appeared to have permanently been sunk by yet another of his many gaffes. Why, people had asked Clinton, was she not winning in a landslide?

Clinton sensibly noted that there are some people who are simply beyond reach. And anyone who thinks about this for even a second would understand that she is right. Does anyone really think that, if Clinton had been a more skilled campaigner, Steve Bannon would have decided to vote for her? Rush Limbaugh? Jeff Sessions? Betsy DeVos? The people who think that Clinton killed Vince Foster? The people who deliberately misinterpret the phrase "black lives matter" by pretending that it means " only black lives matter"? Who believe that women who are raped were asking for it?

Clinton thus turned a good phrase and said that there is unfortunately a large group, a basket of deplorables, who are not reasonably part of any Democratic campaign's outreach. This is not because liberals are too elitist, but because there is simply no common ground. If Clinton had tried to campaign in such precincts, she would have been rightly criticized for wasting campaign resources.

But Clinton quite forcefully and clearly said that she did not think that all Trump-leaning voters were beyond reach. She later apologized for calling it a 50-50 split, but given how fiercely the vast majority of Trump's supporters have continued to back him in light of everything that we have seen since November 8, Clinton might if anything have been too generous.

Again, however, the point is that Clinton did not condescend to the other basket of voters. She saidand I emphasize once again that there is no reading between the lines here, because she was as clear as possible about this in her remarksthat she sincerely believed that there were large numbers of Trump-leaning voters who should not be judged harshly and are non-deplorable.

I most definitely do not expect any Trump supporters or Clinton haters to be convinced by what I have written here. Instead, I am writing this to express my astonishment that liberals are so willing to believe bad things about themselves and their candidates that are simply not true.

As another example, consider a recent op-ed by Roger Cohen, who generally focuses on foreign policy in his writings for The Times . Turning his attention to the U.S. political situation, Cohen expresses concern about people's increasing inability to find common ground. He writes:

This is the chasm to which Fox News, Republican debunking of reason and science, herd-reinforcing social media algorithms, liberal arrogance, rightist bigotry, and an economy of growing inequality have ushered us.

Did you catch that? Wedged in among the list of obviously true explanations for what is happening, he adds "liberal arrogance." At first, I assumed that he had tossed that in as matter of false equivalence, to be able to say, "Well, I didn't only blame conservatives." Instead, he ended up devoting a large section of his column to this idea that liberals are to blame for their own fates.

The liberal complacency that holds that these people simply need to be 'educated' is self-defeating. If thats what the Democratic Party exudes coastal complacency it will lose, just like Ms. Clinton did last year.

As Abe Streep, a journalist and writer based in Montana, put it to me: Nobodys ever been convinced by being made to feel stupid.

So what, exactly, is the lesson for liberals? The reachable people who are voting for Republicans are basing their decisions on fact-free nonsense. It seems to me that voters need to be educated about the facts, and Cohen would appear to agree.

But if a liberal says, "There are more jobs in renewable energy than in fossil fuels, and the trend is entirely in that direction," we are apparently exuding "coastal complacency." If we say, "Trump is lying when he says that immigrants are pouring across the border," we are evidently at fault because the people who believe such lies are "being made to feel stupid."

Yes, obviously there are nice ways and nasty ways to say the same thing. Being nice is nice. But this whole notion that the non-Trump world is filled with a bunch of disdainful prigs is nonsenseor if it is true, the people who are complaining about it are certainly doing a terrible job of proving their case.

On the other hand, maybe I have just made Cohen feel stupid, in which case he can decide that the smart response is to start supporting Trump. But I doubt it.

Similarly, millions of Americans are capable of understanding that they are not at the top of the economic or social heap. The Democratsmost definitely including Hillary Clintonhave advocated policies that would make their lives better, yet many voted for Trump and the Republicans anyway. Some of them are beyond reach. Others are in play.

Liberals are right to try to figure out how to connect with skeptical voters. Democrats are dangerously on the wrong track, however, if they think that they are helping their cause by reinforcing the big lie that liberal condescension is a significant contributor to our political dysfunction.

"Vote for us. We promise to stop doing what we were never actually doing in the first place." Do we really think that this is what will win back voters?

Neil H. Buchanan is an economist and legal scholar and a professor of law at George Washington University. He teaches tax law, tax policy, contracts, and law and economics. His research addresses the long-term tax and spending patterns of the federal government, focusing on budget deficits, the national debt, health care costs and Social Security.

Read the rest here:
Neil Buchanan: Liberals Should Stop Flagellating Themselves - Newsweek

Liberals: Men Without Chests – Power Line (blog)

Men without chests is C.S. Lewiss great description in The Abolition of Man of the type of human soul that modern relativism would produce. The complete quote is: We make men without chests and expect from them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honor and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. Right now this applies to the increasing number of liberals who are wringing their hands over the fact that we have a problem on college campuses. Do tell!

Our first witness is Bari Weiss, an editorial writer for the New York Times, who wrote a piece on June 1 entitled When the Left Turns On Its Own, noting with dismay how the crybullies of Evergreen State College had turned so viciously on Bret Weinstein, a Bernie Sanders-supporting professor. Weiss even admits that Allan Bloom was right about the fecklessness of college administrators (which merely makes Weiss a very slow learner):

Watching the way George Bridges, the president of Evergreen, has handled this situation put me in mind of a line from Allan Blooms book The Closing of the American Mind. Mr. Bloom was writing about administrators reaction to student radicals in the 1960s, but he might as well be writing about Evergreen: A few students discovered that pompous teachers who catechized them about academic freedom could, with a little shove, be made into dancing bears.

Now administrations have become passive adjuncts to the student and faculty jackals, who will always be able to run circles around the lumbering administration bears.

Weiss concludes:

Liberals shouldnt cede the responsibility to defend free speech on college campuses to conservatives. After all, without free speech, whats liberalism about?

Apparently, liberalism is not about doing anything serious to remedy the sorry state of affairs on campus. Weiss nowhere makes any suggestion about disciplining or expelling students who act to stifle free speech or constrict academic inquiry, or shutting down the politicized departments that breed leftist intolerance, or closing administrative offices that incubate the entitled victim mentality. (Thats what Ohio State did last yearwhen it threatened to expel students occupying an administration office. It worked,and I havent heard of subsequent nonsense occurring in Columbus.) Weiss seems to think that a hard-hitting op-ed in the Times will suffice. Thisll show em!

Our second witness of another Timesman, Frank Bruni, who offered up his own handwringing on Friday in These Campus Inquisitions Must Stop. Here, finally I thought, well hear some suggestions for how to stop his madness, which Bruni correctly decries. But nope, Bruni offers nothing beyond his headline. His conclusion is as equally inconclusive as Weiss:

I asked [Evergreen president] Bridges about the epithets hung on Weinstein. He said that such terms are being deployed too readily and casually.

Using the word racist halts the conversation, he said. It just ends it. It doesnt explore the beliefs, the values, the behaviors that comprise individuals.

Isnt he, too, being characterized as racist?

Of course, he said. Its just the way discourse goes these days.

Of course? What a sad state of affairs. And what a retreat from anything that we could really call discourse.

A sad state of affairs that Bruni, like Weiss, offers no remedy for, because they lack the stomach, let alone a chest, to take any serious steps.

Go here to see the original:
Liberals: Men Without Chests - Power Line (blog)

Alberta Liberals elect David Khan as new leader – Calgary Herald

David Khan.

The newly elected leader of the Alberta Liberals says he will focus on rebuilding and re-energizing the party.

Calgary lawyer David Khan won the leadership Sunday evening with 54.8 per cent of the vote, defeating his sole opponent, Kerry Cundal. There were 1,671 total votes and 10 abstentions.

Its been a whirlwind, its been a really busy past two months, but Im so excited about the energy in this room, Khan told a room of supporters at Hotel Arts.

There are so many Liberals, old and new, that are part of our party now and Im really excited about moving liberalism forward in Alberta.

Khan served as the Alberta Liberals executive vice-president before entering the race. He ran as a candidate in Calgary-Buffalo in the 2015 provincial election and as a byelection candidate in Calgary-West in 2014.

His immediate focus is to unite liberals in Alberta and become a real force in the next provincial election.

Make no mistake, it is not Liberal ideas, it is not Liberal values and its not even the Liberal name that has held our party back. We need to stay true to ourselves and who we are and what we stand for, he said.

Theres new people, theres new energy, and we need a new vision and need to move this province forward for the benefit of all.

The only Liberal to be elected in the 2015 general election was Calgary-Mountain View MLA David Swann. Khan hopes to dramatically improve on that result.

That was a change election, that was an anomaly. Thats not the support that we have going forward, he said.

Khan said organizing, fundraising and electing more Liberals are the most crucial areas that need improvement.

Financial reports for the first quarter posted on the Elections Alberta website in April showed the Alberta Liberals and its constituency associations raised $47,959 for the period. For comparison, the governing NDP took in $373,060.

History isnt why we are here today, Khan said. We are here for the future, and it looks promising for Liberals and all Albertans.

Read the rest here:
Alberta Liberals elect David Khan as new leader - Calgary Herald

Liberals Celebrate Parallels Between ‘House of Cards’ and Trump – NewsBusters (blog)


NewsBusters (blog)
Liberals Celebrate Parallels Between 'House of Cards' and Trump
NewsBusters (blog)
Ever since Donald Trump entered the political sphere, liberals have loved comparing him to the sleazy, power-hungry Frank Underwood (Kevin Spacey). Released in its entirety on Netflix on May 30, the fifth season of House of Cards contained some eerie ...

and more »

See more here:
Liberals Celebrate Parallels Between 'House of Cards' and Trump - NewsBusters (blog)

Liberals Challenge Big Telecom In Fight For Affordable Wireless – Huffington Post Canada

The federal Liberals say wireless prices in Canada are too high, and have ordered the countrys telecom watchdog to carry out a review that could lead to less expensive mobile phone services.

Innovation Minister Navdeep Bains announced Monday he is ordering the CRTC to review a decision from earlier this year. That decision effectively prevented discount wireless companies from offering services based mostly on wi-fi connections and by roaming on other companies networks.

The prosperity of Canadians depends on their access to affordable Internet and wireless services. These services are no longer luxuries, Bains said in a statement. They are basic tools for all Canadians regardless of where they live.

Innovation Minister Navdeep Bains.

Speaking at the Canadian Telecom Summit on Monday, Bains highlighted that many rural areas in Canada still lack Internet and wireless services.

Access isnt the only challenge, the bigger barrier is price, Bains said, as quoted at Bloomberg. The digital divide is unacceptable.

Wireless companies known as mobile virtual network operators (MVNOs) have been operating in the U.S and elsewhere for some time. They use a combination of wi-fi access and roaming on competitors' networks to offer wireless services. The CRTC ruled in March that big telecom companies dont have to sell wholesale roaming access to these types of wireless companies.

The Liberals announcement is certain to put the government at odds with Bell, Rogers and Telus, which between them control some 90 per cent of Canadas wireless market.

It also means the Liberals are taking up a cause championed by the previous Conservative government, which moved aggressively to increase competition in Canadas telecom markets, but met with little success.

The three most prominent startup wireless companies Mobilicity, Public Mobile and Wind Mobile were all bought out by the big three telecoms in recent years. Those three were not MVNO's, though they did rely on the big telecoms' networks. Wind Mobile recently rebranded to Freedom Mobile.

Wireless carriers like the now-defunct Mobilicity failed to make much of an impact in Canada's mobile market.

The government is clearly sending a signal to incumbents that it wants more affordable wireless plans in the market, which could be a popular policy in the context of upcoming elections in the not-too-distant future, Desjardins telecom analyst Maher Yaghi wrote in a client note.

Yaghi said that although Canada could see MVNOs come into the market, its likelier that Big Telecom will head off the threat and lower their prices.

They could pre-empt any drastic policy decision by offering lower-end wireless plans, similar to those that Rogers and Telus offer in Internet, Yaghi wrote.

Consumer activist group OpenMedia lauded the Liberals move, saying it could lead to lower prices and greater choice for Canadian consumers and small businesses.

The rest is here:
Liberals Challenge Big Telecom In Fight For Affordable Wireless - Huffington Post Canada