Mediaboss Marketing

Conservatives say signatories to an open letter last week from prominent members of the francophone community in support of Madeleine Meilleur's candidacy for languages commissioner include many Liberal partisans with a vested interest in seeing a fellow Liberal take the top job.

Canadian Heritage MinisterMlanieJolytwicecited the letter in questionperiod this week as evidence the government's nominee enjoys support within thefrancophonecommunity.

"We believe the selection committee made the right choice," the 94 signatories said in the letter. "Throughout her different careers, [Meilleur] has demonstrated professionalism, judgment and especially, integrity."

But the Conservatives said many of the letter's signatories have made donations to the Liberal Party of Canada and thus it is little surprise they would backMeilleur.

Ontario Conservative MP JohnBrassardsaid it is a further sign thatMeilleur'snomination has been tainted by Liberal partypolitics.

"It just deepens the partisan aspect of this appointment," Brassardsaid. "There shouldn't even be any semblance or sense that this is partisan."

CBC News found that 42 of the 94 names on the letter appear to be donors to the federal Liberals, according to analysis of Elections Canada data.

The signatories and donors include not only several prominent Franco-Ontarian leaders in the areas of business, law and culture, but also people who have worked for the federal orOntario Liberal parties. They include Pierre Cyr, the Ontario Liberal Party's operational vice-president of organization, and Noble Chummar, who previouslyworked for formerOntario Liberal premier DaltonMcGuinty andformer Liberal prime ministerPaul Martin.

"I'm not surprised the minister is holding up letters signed by Liberal donors,"Brassardtold CBC News in an interview. "Ms.Meilleurwas a Liberal donor herself."

Since 2009,Meilleurhas donated more than $3,000 to the federal Liberal Party, its local campaigns, and Justin Trudeau's2013 leadership race, according to analysis of Elections Canada data.

Ontario Conservative MP John Brassard says Madeleine Meilleur's nomination as official languages commissioner has been tainted by partisanship. (Adrian Wyld/The Canadian Press)

The appointment process has become too political forMeilleurto take up the position with any credibility, Brassard said.

"It's one thing to wave a letter of support in the House of Commons," Brassard said. "But the reality is that not everybody within the francophone, the Acadian and even the anglophone community is supporting this appointment."

Several organizations representing official language minority communities initially congratulatedMeilleuron her nomination, but have since withdrawn their support in light of the debate as to whether the process was above board.

Earlier this week, theSocitdel'Acadiedu Nouveau-Brunswick a group that defends the rights ofAcadiansin New Brunswick announced itwill seek a judicial reviewof the appointment process.

Ronald Caza, the Ottawa lawyer who rallied Meilleur's supporters to write the open letter to Joly, said he's surprised by the backlash against her nomination.

"All of those people, they signed because they believe in Madeleine Meilleur," Caza said."We just wanted the [Canadian heritage] minister to know that Madeleine does have all this support in the francophone community and that we're all very happy she's been nominated to play this role."

Caza, who has previously served as counsel to former Ontario premier Dalton McGuinty, said he wanted to give voice to those in the francophone community who know Meilleur personally andbelieve she's best placed to advance the interests of official language minority communities.

"Everyone who signed that letter that's what they want," he said. "Whether they're Liberals or not is irrelevant."

Heritage Minister Mlanie Joly is defending the process that led to Meilleur's nomination as open, rigorous and merit-based. (Adrian Wyld/The Canadian Press)

A spokesperson for Joly, Pierre-Olivier Herbert, said "the experience, expertise and integrity of Ms. Meilleur has been recognized by many in the official languages community across Canada."

SinceMeilleur'snomination was announcedon May 15, the government has had to fend accusations from the opposition thatMeilleurbenefited from herties to officials in both the Prime Minister's Office and Joly's office.

Joly told the House of Commons last Wednesday that Gerald Butts and Katie Telford two of the prime minister's top advisers never discussed with Meilleur her nomination as official languages commissioner.

Joly has also said that none of her employees who previously worked with Meilleur or had contact with her were involved in the selection process.

Meilleurtestified before a special sitting of the Senate Monday evening, defending her record and promising to put the languages post ahead of party politics.Underthe Official Languages Act, a language commissioner must be approved by a vote in both the House of Commons and Senate before he or she can start the job.

A vote in the Senate will be held at a later date.

See the original post here:
Letter backing bilingualism watchdog nominee signed by key Liberals, Conservatives say - CBC.ca

The latest research from a Halifax-based political polling group shows the Newfoundland and Labrador Progressive Conservatives continue to have the most support among decided voters, but one-third of the people surveyed don't know who they would vote for.

Corporate Research Associates released results from a poll conducted from May 4 to June 1 on Wednesday.

Tories have 40 per cent of support among decided voters, while the governing Liberals have 34 per cent. That's just a single percentage point change in support for reach party PCs in February had39 per cent support, while Liberals had 33 per cent.

The provincial New Democrats are down to 24 per cent support, compared to 26 per cent three months ago.

Undecided voters total 32 per cent of people polled, while two per cent declined to answer. Five per cent said they either support none of the parties, or do not plan to vote.

When it comes to party leadership, Premier Dwight Ball had a very slight increase in support 23 per cent, compared to 21 per cent three months ago.

PC Leader Paul Davis had36 per cent support, up from 33 per cent in February.

NDP Leader Earle McCurdy saw the biggest change, with 16 per cent, down from 23 per cent.

Thirteen per cent of people polled supported none of the leaders, while 12 per cent said they have no defined opinion.

CRA's poll is part of its Atlantic quarterly report, and was conducted over the phone.

It's based on a sample of 804 adult residents, with overall results accurate within plus or minus 3.5 percentage points, in 95 out of 100 samples.

Read more:
PC Opposition maintains lead ahead of Liberals: CRA poll - CBC.ca

Good morning,

Today is the second hit in the Liberals one-two policy punch.

Yesterday, Chrystia Freeland laid out the governments post-Trump vision for foreign relations. You can read the full half-hour speech here. The tl;dr version is: because the United States has shrugged off the burden of world leadership, Canada and other countries must step up to defend the global order against threats as disparate as terrorism and climate change.

Now, with the governments reasoning established, it will unveil what it plans to do about it. The defence policy review (more here), released at midday local time, will explain the militarys plans for overseas deployments and what the government plans to spend in procurement over the next 20 years.

This is the daily Politics Briefing newsletter, written by Chris Hannay in Ottawa, Mayaz Alam in Toronto and James Keller in Vancouver. If you're reading this on the web or someone forwarded this email newsletter to you, you can sign up for Politics Briefing and all Globe newsletters here. Let us know what you think.

CANADIAN HEADLINES

Former U.S. president Barack Obama echoed some of Ms. Freelands sentiment in a speech in Montreal last night. In Paris, we came together around the most ambitious agreement in history to fight climate change. An agreement that even with the temporary absence of American leadership will still give our children a fighting chance, he said. Afterwards, he and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau got a bite to eat.

In the House of Commons, MPs voted last night on a motion stating that climate change is still a problem and that Canada remains committed to the Paris Accord on reducing emissions, despite the United States withdrawal. The motion passed 277 to 1. The lone holdout was Conservative MP Cheryl Gallant of Eastern Ontario.

The Liberals also backed a Conservative motion in support of the controversial Trans Mountain pipeline expansion project even as B.C. remains uncertain over its political future. The motion passed 252-51 with support from the entire Tory caucus and almost all Liberals. The NDP and Greens, whose provincial alliance in B.C. threatens the project, all voted against supporting the project.

The Liberals are cleaning up some provisions in the Criminal Code, including the introduction of some measures meant to protect victims of sexual assault.

A showdown between senators and the Liberal government over a bill to end sexual discrimination in the Indian Act continues, with a Quebec chief saying the Liberals are raising unnecessary concerns about the number of new people who would be eligible for status.

Kevin OLeary wants a recount.

And as Ontario businesses and residents begin to start preparing for a $15 minimum wage a dichotomy has emerged: small business owners are saying theyll be squeezed by the hike while low-income workers say the increase has the potential to be life-changing.

John Ibbitson (The Globe and Mail) on the Liberals new foreign policy: Welcome to the Trudeau Doctrine: Canadian foreign policy seeks to preserve multilateral institutions and the Western alliance in the wake of America First. This will not go down well with the prickly and, it seems, at times paranoid American President. And it contradicts earlier efforts to preserve good relations with the Trump administration in the lead-up to renegotiating the North American free-trade agreement.

Stephanie Carvin (The Globe and Mail) on turning vision into reality: It is important for Ms. Freeland to articulate an understanding of where she believes Canada to be in a fast-changing world. On Tuesday, she did so convincingly. But the true test of her skills as a minister will be putting this vision into practice and successfully navigating Canada through Mr. Trumps choppy waters.

David Bercuson (The Globe and Mail) on mixed signals: There is a massive inconsistency between what Minister Freeland declared and the signals the government has been putting out through Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

Susan Delacourt (iPolitics) on the importance of trade: Provocatively, the speech also put the crisis in world trade in the same category as Russias seizure of Ukrainian territory and world terrorism itself as a breakdown in rules, order and the sanctity of borders.

Nik Nanos (The Globe and Mail) on opportunity for the NDP: With many of their progressive policies co-opted by the Liberals, the NDP presenting themselves as another moderate social democratic movement could lead them to political oblivion in the short term. One option for the NDP is to veer left of the Liberals, reclaim the New Democrat populist heritage and attack U.S. President Donald Trump.

B.C. UPDATE

As B.C. prepares for a possible referendum on electoral reform, it could look to the experience of New Zealand, which switched from the traditional first-past-the-post system to proportional representation 25 years ago. The NDP and the Greens, which are preparing to take down Premier Christy Clarks minority government, have promised a referendum next year. It would be B.C.s third the province held two failed referendums in 2005 and 2009 on a system called single-transferable vote. In the 1990s, New Zealand adopted a mixed-member system, in which voters choose a local representative and also pick from a separate list thats used to ensure the final seat breakdown match the popular vote. Experts there say its been a success and has resulted in a stable government, despite concerns about fragile coalitions, and it has increased the representation of minorities in New Zealands Parliament. In B.C., the New Democrats and Greens havent said which system theyll propose.

And B.C. Premier Christy Clark, whose government will likely be defeated in a confidence vote later this month, is warning the New Democrats it would be disastrous to delay construction on the Site C hydroelectric dam. Ms. Clark has written the leaders of the NDP and Greens, who want a fresh review. NDP Leader John Horgan says evictions related to the dam and other decisions should stop during the transition. But Ms. Clark says that could cost the province $600-million.

David Moscrop (Macleans) on redoing the B.C. election: In our democracy, the people are the ultimate arbiters of who gets to govern insofar as they elect the members of the legislature who get to determine who the premier will be. But its unclear where the popular will lies.

INTERNATIONAL HEADLINES

Some of the largest business lobbies in Canada, the U.S. and Mexico are banding together to champion the North American free trade agreement. The groups are pushing for as little to change in the deal as possible when negotiations begin later this year.

Two assailants with rifles -- one of whom detonated a bomb he was carrying on himself -- have struck the Iranian parliament in Tehran. Islamic State claimed responsibility for the attack, marking the first time the group has launched a major assault in Iran.

Qatar has long punched above its weight on the international scene. The small nation of 2.5 million people has the third-highest amount of natural gas reserves and is in the top 15 for oil reserves, hosts a large U.S. air base and owns and operates the Al Jazeera media network. Now, after a diplomatic blacklisting orchestrated by Saudi Arabia the country is left in a difficult position. It didnt help that U.S. President Donald Trump took to Twitter to support several Arab states decision to cut ties with Qatar over its alleged support for terrorism.

British voters head to the polls tomorrow for the 2017 general election. Although national security issues have been the major talking point in the past few days much of the election has been focused on domestic issues such as healthcare funding. The BBC has broken down where the parties stand on major issues ranging from social services to Brexit.

When Mr. Trump refused to reaffirm Americas commitment to NATOs principle of mutual defence last month he omitted 27 words from his speech: We face many threats, but I stand here before you with a clear message: the U.S. commitment to the NATO alliance and to Article 5 is unwavering. The omission was not planned and took his senior staff by surprise. Allies took the speech as a sign that the U.S. was retreating from its position in the world and prompted German Chancellor Angela Merkel to say that Europe could no longer rely on America, much like Ms. Freeland told the House yesterday.

Today, U.S. Director of National Intelligence Daniel Coats testifies in the Senate on ties between the Trump team and Russia. Last night a report emerged that in March Mr. Trump asked Mr. Coats to stay behind after a cross-departmental national security meeting. Mr. Coats and CIA Director Mike Pompeo were the only people as Mr. Trump complained about FBI Director James Comeys handling of the Russia investigation. Mr. Coats told associates that Mr. Trump asked if he could intervene in the investigation.

U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions offered to resign in recent weeks but Mr. Trump refused to accept his offer. In his daily press briefing Press Secretary Sean Spicer refused to say whether or not Mr. Trump still has confidence in Mr. Sessions.

And in Mr. Trumps world, everything seems to be two weeks away. Bloomberg takes note of the number of times the President has promised action on a particular file in two weeks time, and how those self-imposed deadlines are often missed.

Lawrence Martin (The Globe and Mail) on James Comey: Playing the role that John Dean did in the Richard Nixon Watergate drama wouldnt bother James Comey. Hes become the architect of White House fate. He torpedoed Hillary Clintons bid to become president. He could now torpedo Mr. Trump as President. Or help save him.

Sarah Mason-Case (Policy Options) on how Paris is not Kyoto: Perhaps the most notable sign that the world is on a different path this time around is the shift in attitudes and actions in the private sector and subnational jurisdictions. These advances are well publicized: the proliferation of renewable energy (and the impending demise of coal), disclosure of climate risks in corporate reporting, mass litigation compelling states to act, municipal partnerships to reduce emissions, subnational carbon pricing and more. Innovative approaches to address climate change are proliferating. Since controlling climate change was always going to require transformations across national boundaries, in jurisdictions down to the local level and by all public and private actors, some might say these burgeoning initiatives are whats needed or what persuaded countries to reach the Paris Agreement in the first place.

Jeffrey Jones (The Globe and Mail) on electoral uncertainty: A hot trend is sweeping the worlds of energy, environment and politics. That is, an agreement is valid only as long as the government in the jurisdiction that signs it does not get voted out in an election. This is very troubling. Or its reason to cheer. Maybe its both, depending on which side of an issue one supports. One things for sure: This fad heaps huge risks on investors as they try to guess which deal will hold up and which ones will fall apart for political reasons. (for subscribers)

Follow Chris Hannay on Twitter: @channay

Go here to read the rest:
Politics Briefing: Liberals announce change in defence policy - The Globe and Mail

Eco-warriors are celebrated in one video. In another, a message flashes across the screen: We believe no matter who you are, where youre from, who you love, or who you worship, we all belong. Yet another ad champions the theme of girls and Stem (science, technology, engineering, and math) education and celebrates a girl-centered technology organization.

Despite all appearances, these videos are not public-service campaigns. Instead, they are advertisements for some of the most blockbuster brands around: for the car company Kia, for Airbnb, and for the phone carrier Verizon, whose ad campaign involves partnering with Girls who Code. These companies are now gesturing at liberal values through their messaging. If television is waking up politically, with shows such as The Handmaids Tale, advertisements seem to be far ahead.

Why is this the case? For starters, advertisers are constantly looking for future markets, and younger Americans are ostensibly more liberal than their parents. Brand loyalty starts in the cradle and ends in the grave, as I wrote in my first book, Branded: The Buying and Selling of Teenagers. The increasingly progressive messages in marketing campaigns are clearly a mercenary attempt to entice millennials: they are trying to be woke.

The coveted demographic that has the dollars to spend on high-end products is increasingly clustered in the bluest American cities, such as New York and San Francisco. In the past two decades, both capital and income have drifted there. If the Democratic party has changed, now circling around the professional classes and the very rich, the rise of Democratic consumer dollars is part of this shift, and these ads appear to be catering to it.

This all makes it seem, at least on the screen, like blue-state voters still have purchasing power but political power and economic power are held by different groups of people. Trump-leaning rural Americans with fewer consumer dollars to spend control the polls, as the national voting system gives more power to underpopulated rural areas. And advertisers cater to richer, progressive liberals, hoping that reflecting their values will persuade them to open their wallets.

I spoke with the urbanist Richard L Florida about this. He thinks that these ads are reflecting a bifurcated country, one with different consumer tastes and different amounts to spend on said tastes: the Whole Foods shopper and the plain old grocery shopper, the creative class member who drives the cliche Prius versus the equally cliche rancher driving the pickup truck.

Advertisers used to wonder how a spot would play in Peoria [Illinois], says Florida. Now they wonder how it would play in Brooklyn. Of course Heineken would need a liberal ad, Florida says, in order to distract the buyer whod rather be discovering a craft brewery from Michigans Upper Peninsula into buying a boring old big-brand beer.

The strategy doesnt always work, as shown in the embarrassing Kendall Jenner Pepsi spot, which appropriated Black Lives Matter in the name of sugar water. But for the most part the results are quite deft, as in the said Heineken ad, a British spot featuring a real transphobic lad conversing with a transgender soldier, across both beers and social differences.

According to Rob Baiocco, a creative executive at the BAM Connection who has worked on campaigns for Pringles and Starburst, all of these issue ads may warm the hearts of millennials, as they are intended to. But to his mind, they are also highly suspect. He highlighted the fakery of their woke-ness: Companies are avidly and aggressively trying to get involved in a socially responsible space, and they are doing it horribly they are grabbing at straws.

They are entering a complex conversation they have no right to be in, yet they are forcing their way in, Baiocco says. These creatives are trying to make their toilet paper save the world.

Sometimes, he adds, a Pringle is just a Pringle.

Those who study commercials can also be skeptical of these precision Democratic and/or activist ads. Empowering girls becomes a product unto itself. Thats commodity activism: theres no real connection to structural change, says Sarah Banet-Weiser, an advertising expert at the University of Southern California and author of AuthenticTM: The Politics of Ambivalence in a Brand Culture.

Banet-Weiser sees another striking omission in these goodwill ads: there is no mention of the political problem that has afflicted so many voters, namely economic inequality. Indeed, inequality is the largest driver of our national division, but it still dares not speak its name in these ads and in commodity activism. Economic inequality can only be sold in ads or made shiny and interesting when its called opportunity or female empowerment, says Banet-Weiser. Thats because, of course, ads are ultimately manipulating us to spend, not to set our political imaginations free.

Ads with gentle anti-Trump messaging may be relatively new, but we can look to a long history of activist commercials to see what may happen next time around. Indeed, advertisers of the 1960s and 70s conquered radical cool for their own purposes. They had actors singing in perfect harmony owing to their shared passion for soda, as in the 1971 Id Like to Buy the World a Coke spot.

That generic message of peace in the ads of the Vietnam era is now more issue-specific, however, with ads supporting undocumented workers or getting girls into technology.

There is another dark side to this: with our congresspeople refusing to even interact with us at town hall meetings, the closest we can get to having someone hear our complaints is to send a mean public tweet to the folks at American Express or Apple, or to boycott Ivanka Trumps clothing line until some retail chains remove it. But these are simply companies, not the commonweal.

Since United Airlines violently abused a paying rider, the outrage at unfeeling corporations and bad customer service has grown, leading to some bitter hashtags. But wouldnt some of this rage be better directed at our national representatives or at the jurists who made corporations people in the first place?

And yet, despite all of the limits of the woke ads or, as some call the phenomenon, faux woke and to a smaller extent, the new consumer activism, both give people like me a pathetic satisfaction. As I sit watching TV, curled on the couch in my post-election fetal position, I can believe for a moment that we exist in a different America one where the Democratic shopper is the victor, a country that values tolerance and diversity and the education of girls like my daughter.

Outclassed: The Secret Life of Inequality is our new column about class. Read all articles here

Go here to read the rest:
Faking 'wokeness': how advertising targets millennial liberals for profit - The Guardian

Shortly after three men with knives and a van spent eight minutes murdering and maiming people at random on London Bridge, one of the Democratic Partys leading voices on national security responded on Twitter. Chris Murphy began by criticizing Donald Trump for sounding the alarms. My god, he wrote. @POTUS has no idea that the goal of terrorists is to instill a level of fear in the public disproportionate to the actual threat. The Connecticut senator tried to put the threat in proper proportion. Terrorism is a real threat, he acknowledged, but remember that since 9/11, you have a greater chance of being killed by a falling object than by terrorists. Murphy then issued a five-point rebuttal to Trumps approach to terrorism. He did not issue a five-point plan for defeating falling objects.

Maybe Murphy didnt do this because falling objects are not equivalent to three men ramming and hacking people to death on London Bridge. Terrorists attack not just individuals but society, which makes mortality rates a poor measure of the danger terrorism poses. Falling objects attack neither. The men behind the carnage in London appear to have been inspired by ISIS, the same organization that has recently motivated young Muslim men to mow down civilians from Minya to Manchester, Berlin to Baghdad, Istanbul to Orlando, and beyond. Telling people not to be frightened by such actsthat fear is what the terrorists wantdoes not make those acts less frightening. Many people are scared by terrorism, despite the allegedly comforting statistics, because terrorism is scary. Its designed to be. And most people recognize that while terrorism takes various forms, one of the most virulent strains these days is extremist violence committed in the name of Islam. They distinguish, in other words, between wobbly furniture and jihadist terror.

The Problem With Calls for 'Resilience'

In the raw moments after a terrorist attack, people are often looking for recognition of the horror and reassurance that theyll be kept safe, not to be told that theyre overreacting or to be soothed with unconvincing arguments. Franklin Roosevelt famously told Americans during the Great Depression that the only thing we have to fear is fear itselfnameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror. Less famous is how he contextualized that message. He listed the countrys many dark realitiesthe government deprived of revenue, families stripped of their savings, the unemployed facing the grim problem of existence, and so on. The good news, Roosevelt said, was that these were merely material things, and they could be regained. Before fear could be feared, it had to be reckoned with.

Murphys reaction to the London attack captures a common line of reasoning, particularly on the left, and it recalls some of the clinical rhetoric that Barack Obama used in similar circumstances. In repeatedly resisting (with some exceptions) any language that associated terrorism with extremist interpretations of Islam, the former president provided fodder to right-wing critics who argued that he was misleading people about the nature of the problem. And in his cerebral approach to counterterrorism, Obama could come across as tone-deaf to the public mood. After attackers killed 130 people in Paris , for example, Obama scoffed at reporters questions about whether the bloodshed would change his ISIS strategy. My colleague Jeffrey Goldberg documented what happened next on the presidents overseas trip:

Air Force One departed Antalya and arrived 10 hours later in Manila. Thats when the presidents advisers came to understand, in the words of one official, that everyone back home had lost their minds. Susan Rice, trying to comprehend the rising anxiety, searched her hotel television in vain for CNN, finding only the BBC and Fox News. She toggled between the two, looking for the mean, she told people on the trip.

Later, the president would say that he had failed to fully appreciate the fear many Americans were experiencing about the possibility of a Paris-style attack in the U.S. Great distance, a frantic schedule, and the jet-lag haze that envelops a globe-spanning presidential trip were working against him. But he has never believed that terrorism poses a threat to America commensurate with the fear it generates. Even during the period in 2014 when ISIS was executing its American captives in Syria, his emotions were in check. Valerie Jarrett, Obamas closest adviser, told him people were worried that the group would soon take its beheading campaign to the U.S. Theyre not coming here to chop our heads off, he reassured her. Obama frequently reminds his staff that terrorism takes far fewer lives in America than handguns, car accidents, and falls in bathtubs do. Several years ago, he expressed to me his admiration for Israelis resilience in the face of constant terrorism, and it is clear that he would like to see resilience replace panic in American society. Nevertheless, his advisers are fighting a constant rearguard action to keep Obama from placing terrorism in what he considers its proper perspective, out of concern that he will seem insensitive to the fears of the American people.

Into this emotional void stepped Donald Trump, who on terrorism is the id to Obamas ego. He rails against political correctness, portrays radical Islamic terrorism as a grave threat to the nation, and embodies the fearful alarmism that terrorism can provoke.

Obamas stance on terrorism also contained a contradiction. He argued that the terrorist threat was much less severe than other challenges such as climate change and gun violence. But he didnt scale back his counterterrorism policies to reflect that assessment. After criticizing the excesses of George W. Bushs war on terror, Obama launched a massive drone war against suspected terrorists in several countries. He urged the government to do more on gun violence, which is responsible for far more deaths per year in the United States than terrorism is, while simultaneously claiming that the U.S. government was right to spend over a trillion dollars, and pass countless laws, and devote entire agencies to preventing terrorist attacks on our soil. Either Obama never managed to invest in counterterrorism at the level he felt it deserved, or he was tacitly acknowledging that terrorism is, in fact, a big problem that statistics only partially capture.

Murphy faces a similar dilemma. He has developed a counterterrorism strategy that includes opposing Trumps travel ban, which he claims will alienate and unfairly malign Muslims without reducing the terrorist threat; de-emphasizing military solutions to terrorism in favor of better-resourced diplomacy and a new Marshall Plan of economic assistance to the Middle East and Africa; and withholding U.S. support to Saudi Arabia unless it stops spreading fundamentalist Islam across the Muslim world.

A progressive foreign policy isnt just looking at the back-end of terrorism, but is also looking at the front-end of terrorism, Murphy told me earlier this year. And at the front-end of terrorism is bad U.S. military policy in the Middle East, is the Saudi funding of a very intolerant brand of Islam that becomes the building block of extremism, and poverty and political instability.

Which is why its perplexing that, around the time we spoke, during a visit to Yale Law School, Murphy observed that Americans are more likely to be killed in an elevator accident or by lightning than by terrorism. Why ditch the Saudis and unveil a new Marshall Plan to solve a problem thats less threatening than lightning?

Original post:
The Trouble With How Liberals Talk About Terrorism - The Atlantic