Archive for the ‘Liberals’ Category

Liberals hire Odgers Berndtson to find CEO for ‘thankless job’ of leading infrastructure bank – BNN

Jon Erlichman and Ian Vandaelle, BNN

The Liberal government has begun its search for a CEO to lead Canadas new infrastructure bank. While the high profile position is expected to attract candidates from around the world, industry observers say the job will require a certain style of leader.

You would need someone with some grey hair, public respect, tons of energy, and the willingness to commit a lot of time, former Alberta Investment Management Co (AIMCo) CEO Leo De Bever told BNN in an email. This will likely be a thankless job.It requires someone with a very thick skin.

This week, former Ontario Teachers Pension Plan CEO Jim Leech met with recruiters overseeing the search for a chief executive. A source familiar with the search tells BNN the government is working with executive search firm Odgers Berndtson. Leech was brought on board by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to advise the government on the banks creation. The CEO will have to run the bank, write out a plan, hire people, create the right culture which will be so important, Leech told BNN in a television interview. Theres a lot of work to be done.

Canada Infrastructure Bank will be in business by next year: Leech

Jim Leech, Special Advisor to Prime Minister says the amount of infrastructure needed in Canada far outweighs the money that's available in grants. He tells BNN how the Canada Infrastructure Bank will help.

Finance Minister Bill Morneau originally unveiled the governments plan to create the bank during last falls economic update, following a recommendation from his Advisory Council on Economic Growth. The bank is expected to help fund massive infrastructure projects in Canada by attracting large institutions from around the world as partner investors. Its goal is to leverage up to five dollars in private money for each dollar the federal government puts in.

The government has said it plans to launch the infrastructure bank before the end of the year. Legislation for the bank is currently being is debated in the House of Commons.And, as BNN was first to report, the bank will be headquartered in Toronto, which is already home to several leading pension funds with a history of investing in infrastructure. The banks mandate is to invest $35 billion, with $15 billion available for projects that dont guarantee a full return on investment. The other $20 billion will be used to invest in equity or loans that wont count against the governments spending.

While the government has reached out to institutional investors globally about partnering with the bank, its unclear how much capital these global players are willing to commit. I think the key to martialing this kind of international interest will be the nature and quality of the projects that come to the bank for consideration, Mark Romoff, president and CEO of The Canadian Council for Public-Private Partnerships, told BNN in a television interview.

Meanwhile, opposition leaders have accused the Liberals of giving the private sector too much say in the banks creation.

The infrastructure bank boondoggle is just another taxpayer-funded Liberal vanity project, interim Conservative leader Rona Ambrose recently said during question period. I know the Liberals are excited to impress their friends on Bay Street and Wall Street, but it is one thing to buy them tickets to a Broadway show. It is quite another thing to buy them a $35 billion bank.

To be honest, I could not come up with people that would have both the skills and the stomach, De Bever told BNN in an email.

I agree with Jim Leech that the CEO shouldbe someone with financial acumen and a great team leader, but I'd also add they should be strongly committed to ensuring the public/taxpayersget good value for their money and committed to transparency and accountability, Toby Sanger, an economist with the Canadian Union of Public Employees told BNN in an email.On this basis, I'd suggest Kevin Page, former Parliamentary Budget Officer, who embodiesall these qualities. Although, I suspect theyll probably go for a former banker, such as Ed Clark.

I have not been contacted, Kevin Page told BNN in an email. I have a great job. As for Clark, a source told BNN the banks creators have not reached out to him, nor would he be interested in the role.

One infrastructure investment executive who privately expressed interest in running the bank noted the CEO pick will also depend on the make-up of the banks board of directors.

The executive search firm has been retained to scour the world for qualified and interested candidates, said the executive, who asked not to be named. But the first order of business is a board and a chairperson. The board and its chair will have significant influence determining the skills, characteristics and experience desired of the CEO.

A healthy fit and working relationship between the chair and the CEO will be critical to success, Richard Leblanc, a governance professor at York University told BNN in an email. Former political leaders would have government interface ability, as well as consensus building ability, and an unblemished record, which is also needed. John Baird, who served as Foreign Affairs Minister in Stephen Harpers cabinet immediately come to mind. As does Frank McKenna, former Canadian Ambassador to the U.S. Ultimately, the party affiliation is not important, but rather the knowledge of government machinations, which is very complex.

When BNN contacted McKenna, who currently serves as deputy chairman at TD Bank, he said he has not been contacted and does not have interest in the position. As Baird, who is currently a senior advisor at Bennett Jones, he responded Lol...no, when asked by BNN about whether hes been contacted or has any interest in the position.

See the rest here:
Liberals hire Odgers Berndtson to find CEO for 'thankless job' of leading infrastructure bank - BNN

Why Liberals Aren’t as Tolerant as They Think – POLITICO Magazine

In March, students at Middlebury College disrupted a lecture by the conservative political scientist Charles Murray because they disagreed with some of his writings. Last month, the University of California, Berkeley, canceled a lecture by the conservative commentator Ann Coulter due to concerns for her safetyjust two months after uninviting the conservative writer Milo Yiannopoulos due to violent protests. Media outlets on the right have played up the incidents as evidence of rising close-mindedness on the left.

For years, its conservatives who have been branded as intolerant, often for good reason. But conservatives will tell you that liberals demonstrate their own intolerance, using the strictures of political correctness as a weapon of oppression. That became a familiar theme during the 2016 campaign. After the election, Sean McElwee, a policy analyst at the progressive group Demos Action, reported that Donald Trump had received his strongest support among Americans who felt that whites and Christians faced a great deal of discrimination. Spencer Greenberg, a mathematician who runs a website for improving decision-making, found that the biggest predictor of voting for Trump after party affiliation was the rejection of political correctnessTrumps voters felt silenced.

Story Continued Below

So whos right? Are conservatives more prejudiced than liberals, or vice versa? Research over the years has shown that in industrialized nations, social conservatives and religious fundamentalists possess psychological traits, such as the valuing of conformity and the desire for certainty, that tend to predispose people toward prejudice. Meanwhile, liberals and the nonreligious tend to be more open to new experiences, a trait associated with lower prejudice. So one might expect that, whatever each groups own ideology, conservatives and Christians should be inherently more discriminatory on the whole.

But more recent psychological research, some of it presented in January at the annual meeting of the Society of Personality and Social Psychology (SPSP), shows that its not so simple. These findings confirm that conservatives, liberals, the religious and the nonreligious are each prejudiced against those with opposing views. But surprisingly, each group is about equally prejudiced. While liberals might like to think of themselves as more open-minded, they are no more tolerant of people unlike them than their conservative counterparts are.

Political understanding might finally stand a chance if we could first put aside the argument over who has that bigger problem. The truth is that we all do.

***

When Mark Brandt, an American-trained psychologist now at Tilburg University in the Netherlands, first entered graduate school, he wondered why members of groups that espouse tolerance are so often intolerant. I realized that there was a potential contradiction in the literature, he told me. On the one hand, liberals have a variety of personality traits and moral values that should protect them from expressing prejudice. On the other hand, people tend to express prejudice against people who do not share their values. So, if you value open-mindedness, as liberals claim to do, and you see another group as prejudiced, might their perceived prejudice actually increase your prejudice against them?

Brandt approached this question with Geoffrey Wetherell and Christine Reyna in a 2013 paper published in Social Psychological and Personality Science. They asked a variety of Americans about their political ideologies; how much they valued traditionalism, egalitarianism and self-reliance; and their feelings toward eight groups of people, four of them liberal (feminists, atheists, leftist protesters and pro-choice people) and four of them conservative (supporters of the traditional family, religious fundamentalists, Tea Party protesters and pro-life people). Participants reported how much each group violated their core values and beliefs, and they assessed how much they supported discrimination toward that group, by rating their agreement with statements such as Feminists should not be allowed to make a speech in this city and Prolife people deserve any harassment they receive.

As predicted, conservatives were more discriminatory than liberals toward liberal groups, and liberals were more discriminatory than conservatives toward conservative groups. Conservatives discrimination was driven by their higher traditionalism and by liberal groups apparent violation of their values. Liberals discrimination was driven by their lower traditionalism and by conservative groups apparent violation of their values. Complicating matters, conservatives highly valued self-reliance, which weakened their discrimination toward liberal groups, perhaps because self-reliance is associated with the freedom to believe or do what one wants. And liberals highly valued universalism, which weakened their discrimination toward conservative groups, likely because universalism espouses acceptance of all.

But these differences didnt affect the larger picture: Liberals were as discriminatory toward conservative groups as conservatives were toward liberal groups. And Brandts findings have been echoed elsewhere: Independently and concurrently, the labs of John Chambers at St. Louis University and Jarret Crawford at The College of New Jersey have also found approximately equal prejudice among conservatives and liberals.

Newer research has rounded out the picture of two warring tribes with little tolerance toward one another. Not only are conservatives unfairly maligned as more prejudiced than liberals, but religious fundamentalists are to some degree unfairly maligned as more prejudiced than atheists, according to a paper Brandt and Daryl Van Tongeren published in January in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. To be sure, they found that people high in religious fundamentalism were more cold and dehumanizing toward people low in perceived fundamentalism (atheists, gay men and lesbians, liberals and feminists) than people low in fundamentalism were toward those high in perceived fundamentalism (Catholics, the Tea Party, conservatives and Christians). But this prejudice gap existed only if the strength of the perceivers religious belief was also very high. Otherwise, each end of the fundamentalist spectrum looked equally askance at each other. And while liberals and the nonreligious sometimes defend themselves as being intolerant of intolerance, they cant claim this line as their own. In the study, bias on both ends was largely driven by seeing the opposing groups as limiting ones personal freedom.

Other researchers have come forward with similar findings. Filip Uzarevic, from the Catholic University of Louvain, in Beligium, has reported preliminary data showing that Christians were more biased against Chinese, Muslims and Buddhists than were atheists and agnostics, but they were less biased than atheists and agnostics against Catholics, anti-gay activists and religious fundamentalists (with atheists expressing colder feelings than agnostics). So, again, the religious and nonreligious have their own particular targets of prejudice. Perhaps more surprising, atheists and agnostics were less open to alternative opinions than Christians, and they reported more existential certainty. Uzarevic suggested to me after the SPSP conference that these results might be specific to the studys location, Western Europe, which is highly secularized and where the nonreligious, unlike Christians, do not have so many opportunities and motivations to integrate ideas challenging their own.

If liberalism and secularism dont mute prejudice, you can guess what Brandt found about intelligence. In a study published last year in Social Psychological and Personality Science, he confirmed earlier findings linking low intelligence to prejudice, but showed it was only against particular groups. Low cognitive ability (as measured by a vocabulary test) correlated with bias against Hispanics, Asian Americans, atheists, gay men and lesbians, blacks, Muslims, illegal immigrants, liberals, whites, people on welfare and feminists. High cognitive ability correlated with bias against Christian fundamentalists, big business, Christians (in general), the Tea Party, the military, conservatives, Catholics, working-class people, rich people and middle-class people. But raw brainpower itself doesnt seem to be the deciding factor in who we hate: When Brandt controlled for participants demographics and traditionalism (smart people were more supportive of newer lifestyles and less supportive of traditional family ties), intelligence didnt correlate with overall levels of prejudice.

***

So whats at the root of our equal-opportunity prejudice? Conservatives are prejudiced against feminists and other left-aligned groups and liberals are prejudiced against fundamentalists and other right-aligned groups, but is it really for political reasons? Or is there something about specific social groups beyond their assumed political ideologies that leads liberals and conservatives to dislike them? Feminists and fundamentalists differ on many dimensions beyond pure politics: geography, demographics, social status, taste in music.

In a paper forthcoming in Psychological Science, Brandt sought to answer those questions by building prediction models to estimate not only whether someones political views would increase positive or negative feelings about a target group, but also precisely how much, and which aspects of the group affected those feelings the most.

First, Brandt used surveys of Americans to assess the perceived traits of 42 social groups, including Democrats, Catholics, gays and lesbians and hipsters. How conservative, conventional and high-status were typical members of these groups? And how much choice did they have over their group membership? (Some things are seen as more genetic than othersLady Gagas anthem Born This Way was adopted by homosexuals, not hipsters.) Then he looked at data from a national election survey that asked people their political orientation and how warm or cold their feelings were toward those 42 groups.

Conservative political views were correlated with coldness toward liberals, gays and lesbians, transgender people, feminists, atheists, people on welfare, illegal immigrants, blacks, scientists, Hispanics, labor unions, Buddhists, Muslims, hippies, hipsters, Democrats, goths, immigrants, lower-class people and nerds. Liberal political views, on the other hand, were correlated with coldness toward conservatives, Christian fundamentalists, rich people, the Tea Party, big business, Christians, Mormons, the military, Catholics, the police, men, whites, Republicans, religious people, Christians and upper-class people.

Brandt found that knowing only a target groups perceived political orientation (are goths seen as liberal or conservative?), you can predict fairly accurately whether liberals or conservatives will express more prejudice toward them, and how much. Social status (is the group respected by society?) and choice of group membership (were they born that way?) mattered little. It appears that conflicting political values really are what drive liberal and conservative prejudice toward these groups. Feminists and fundamentalists differ in many ways, but, as far as political prejudice is concerned, only one way really matters.

In another recent paper, in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Crawford, Brandt and colleagues also found that people were especially biased against those who held opposing social, versus economic, political ideologiesperhaps because cultural issues seem more visceral than those that involve spreadsheets.

None of this, of course, explains why liberals open-mindedness doesnt better protect them against prejudice. One theory is that the effects of liberals unique traits and worldviews on prejudice are swamped by a simple fact of humanity: We like people similar to us. Theres a long line of research showing that we prefer members of our own group, even if the group is defined merely by randomly assigned shirt color, as one 2011 study found. Social identity is strongstronger than any inclination to seek or suppress novelty. As Brandt told me, The openness-related traits of liberals are not some sort of prejudice antidote.

Brandt further speculates that ones tendency to be open- or closed-minded affects ones treatment of various groups mostly by acting as a group definition in itselfare you an Open or a Closed? Supporting this idea, he and collaborators reported in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology in 2015 that, although openness to new experiences correlated with lower prejudice against a wide collection of 16 social groups, it actually increased prejudice against the most closed-minded groups in the bunch. Open-minded people felt colder than closed-minded people toward conventional groups such as evangelical Christians, Republicans and supporters of the traditional family. And, unsurprisingly, closed-minded people were more biased than open-minded people against unconventional groups such as atheists, Democrats, poor people, and gays and lesbians. Research consistently shows that liberals are more open than conservatives, but in many cases what matters is: Open to what?

***

Knowing all this, can we change tolerance levels? You might think that the mind-expanding enterprise of education would reduce prejudice. But according to another presentation at the SPSP meeting, it does not. It does, however, teach people to cover it up. Maxine Najle, a researcher at the University of Kentucky, asked people if they would consider voting for a presidential candidate who was atheist, black, Catholic, gay, Muslim or a woman. When asked directly, participants with an education beyond high school reported a greater willingness to vote for these groups than did less-educated participants. But when asked in a more indirect way, with more anonymity, the two groups showed equal prejudice. So higher education seems to instill an understanding of the appropriate levels of intolerance to express, Najle told me, not necessarily higher tolerance.

Educations suppression of expressed prejudice suggests a culture of political correctness in which people dont feel comfortable sharing their true feelings for fear of reprisaljust the kind of intolerance conservatives complain about. And yet, as a society, weve agreed that certain kinds of speech, such as threats and hate speech, are to be scorned. Theres an argument to be made that conservative intolerance does more harm than liberal intolerance, as it targets more vulnerable people. Consider the earlier list of groups maligned by liberals and conservatives. Rich people, Christians, men, whites and the police would generally seem to have more power today than immigrants, gays, blacks, poor people and goths. According to Brandt, Weve understandably received a variety of pushback when we suggest that prejudice towards Christians and conservatives is prejudice. To many its just standing up to bullies.

Conservatives, however, dont view it that way. Nowadays, as the right sees it, the left has won the culture war and controls the media, the universities, Hollywood and the education of everyones children, says Jonathan Haidt, a psychologist at New York University who studies politics and morality. Many of them think that they are the victims, they are fighting back against powerful and oppressive forces, and their animosities are related to that worldview.

Robbie Sutton, a psychologist at the University of Kent in England, presented preliminary findings at SPSP that touch on the issue of which intolerance is more justifiable. He found that people who endorsed denialist conspiracy theories about climate change (e.g., Climate change is a myth promoted by the government as an excuse to raise taxes and curb peoples freedom) were more likely than those who endorsed warmist conspiracy theories (e.g., Politicians and industry lobbyists are pressuring scientists to downplay the dangers of climate change) to want to censor, surveil and punish climate scientists, whereas warmists were more likely than denialists to want to punish and surveil climate change skeptics. But are these sentiments equally harmful? Many people would say thats a subjective question, but its hard to ignore the evidence, for instance, that Exxon has hidden its knowledge of climate change for years, and the fact that that the current Republican administration has placed new restrictions on Environmental Protection Agency scientists. Who is more vulnerable, and backed by scientific evidence: Exxon or environmental researchers?

Regardless of who has the more toxic intolerance, the fact remains that people have trouble getting along. What to do? One of the most consistent ways to increase tolerance is contact with the other side and sharing the experience of working toward a goal, Brandt says. He suggests starting with the person next door. Everyone benefits from safe neighborhoods, a stimulating cultural environment and reliable snow removal, he says. If liberal and conservative neighbors can find ways to work together on the local level to improve their neighborhoods and communities, it might help to increase tolerance in other domains. (If you can find a neighbor of the opposite party, that is.)

Progressives might see the conservatives trailing history as being on its wrong side, but conservatives might feel the same way about the progressives way ahead of the train. Getting everyone onboard simultaneously could well be impossible, but if we share a common vision, even partially, maybe we can at least stay on the tracks.

See the original post here:
Why Liberals Aren't as Tolerant as They Think - POLITICO Magazine

Energy projects in question as Liberals win British Columbia minority – Reuters

(Adds comments from energy sector, analyst and professor)

VANCOUVER May 10 The prospect of a minority Liberal government in British Columbia heightened economic uncertainty on Canada's west coast on Wednesday, pitting the future of key energy projects against the ability of the Liberals to work with the third-party Greens.

Preliminary results showed the ruling right-of-center Liberals squeaked to victory with 43 seats but were one seat shy of a majority. The left-leaning New Democratic Party (NDP) took 41 seats. Absentee votes still need to be counted, a process that will take until May 24 and could change the outcome.

The province's nominal leader, the lieutenant governor, has requested the Liberal Premier Christy Clark continue to govern.

To keep power, the energy-friendly Clark needs to woo the tiny environmentalist Green Party, as she tries to push forward with pipeline expansion plans and liquefied natural gas (LNG) projects.

The Greens, which have three seats, could also ally with the NDP to form a majority, resulting in an administration unfriendly to energy development.

"In our view, the most immediate casualty could be the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain Expansion," Dejardins analysts said of the C$7.4 billion ($5.4 billion) federally approved pipeline project through British Columbia that both NDP and the Greens oppose.

George Hoberg, professor of environmental and natural resource policy at the University of British Columbia, said the situation could create uncertainties and makes building the project politically difficult.

"Constitutionally, the federal government might have the upper hand ... but the B.C. government could force significant delays," he said.

Kinder Morgan's Canadian unit said in a regulatory filing on Wednesday it is looking to raise up to C$1.75 billion ($1.28 billion) in an initial public offering to fund Trans Mountain.

When asked whether Kinder Morgan is concerned about the British Columbia election, President Ian Anderson said its pipeline project continues to move forward.

The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers industry lobby group, whose members depend on export routes such as Trans Mountain, said: "We're prepared to continue to advocate for our interests."

British Columbia is home to numerous pending LNG export terminals whose fates have now become uncertain, such as one $27 billion project of Malaysia's Petronas for which NDP leader John Horgan has expressed reservations. The Greens have been against such projects.

"LNG project approvals would be easier for the province to unilaterally reverse," compared to federally approved pipelines, Hoberg said.

The BC LNG Alliance industry group said its members remain committed to their projects and look forward to working with the new government. (Reporting by Nicole Mordant in Vancouver, Andrea Hopkins in Ottawa and Ethan Lou in Calgary, Alberta; Editing by Bernard Orr and Lisa Shumaker)

* Egain reports new saas bookings growth of 88% and backlog growth of 43% year over year in Q3 2017

* IDENTIV INC - CONFIRMING PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED GUIDANCE FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017 POSITIVE ADJUSTED EBITDA BETWEEN $4 MILLION AND $7 MILLION Source text for Eikon: Further company coverage:

* Durect Corporation announces first quarter 2017 financial results and provides corporate update

Original post:
Energy projects in question as Liberals win British Columbia minority - Reuters

Liberals need to close the millennials funding gap – USA TODAY

Carlos Vera, Opinion contributor 5:02 a.m. ET May 10, 2017

At Brooklyn College in New York.(Photo: Bebeto Matthews, AP)

Finding out that I was selected to intern at the White House in 2014 was one of my proudest achievements. As a first-generation college student committed to public service, it didnt get better than this. I quickly accepted the offer and was soon notified of the strict dress code: namely, the expectation that I wear a suit every day. My only issue, as kid from a low-income family, was that I owned just one suit. Thankfully, my dad, my two auntsand my uncle pitched in money so I could buy one more suit and begin my internship in the Obama White House without any unnecessary snags.

This was not an isolated incident. Iworked as an unpaid intern on the Hill,and later on a national campaign for a progressive candidate without pay. This is the unfortunate reality facing too many young people jockeying to enter and stay in progressive politics. Ultimately, its a story of missed opportunity.

The weekend Donald Trump was sworn in as the 45th president of the United States, a groundswell of progressive energy much of it youth-led sought to set the tone for an inclusive movement of resistance and progressive ideas. Massive displays of protest and solidarity took root across the country. Millennials, the most progressive and diverse generation in American history, seemed a natural fit to steer these waves of political enthusiasm into a sustainable path forward for years to come.

But for all that young people have tried to invest in the progressive movement, as my experience shows, the movement hasnt invested as much in young people.

In fact, a new report from Generation Progress and Young People For found that financial support for conservative youth organizations outpaces support for progressive youth organizations by tens of millions of dollars. And with nearly 100 new progressive organizations forming in the wake of the presidential election alone, a financial disadvantage of this scale doesnt bode well for the future sustainability of our movement.

Donald Trump and Marine Le Pen are fake populists: Sen. Sherrod Brown

Vague protests are Trojan horses for liberal politics: Christian Schneider

In 2014, for instance, the five largest conservative youth organizations revenue totaledjust over $100 million, while the aggregate revenue of the five largest progressive youth organizations was just under $38 million. Moreover, between 2008 and 2014, conservative youth organizations received nearly $500 million morein contributions than their progressive counterparts.

Unchecked and overlooked, this youth investment gap is only widening, growing from a 2-to-1 conservative advantage in total revenue in 2008 to 3-to-1in 2014. Should this trend persist, the progressive movement runs the risk of chasing young people away, simply by not investing more in them.

My experiences with unpaid internships led me to launch Pay Our Interns last year, a nonprofit, bipartisan organization that advocates for more paid internships for Millennials. Since our launch, hundreds of interns have reached out and shared stories of what theyve endured to intern at progressive institutions.

My own work with Pay Our Interns has confirmed the youth investment gap: conservatives will often pay interns while progressives do not. In the Senate, half of the Republican offices pay interns; for Democrats that figure is about one-quarter. The Republican National Committee pays interns, the Democratic National Committee doesnt. Whereas College Republicans enjoyed a national budget of over $6 million for 2016, College Democrats didnt even have a line item in the DNC budget.

POLICING THE USA:Alook at race, justice, media

Trump should expand national service, not kill it: Column

Conservatives have simply understood how to play the long game, longer. For decades, conservative fundershave provided financial support to conservative youth organizations with very few strings attached, granting broader autonomy to spend on leadership development, skills trainingand general expenses.

Progressive funders have tended to be more nearsighted, focusing their giving on single-issue campaigns or increasing election-year turnout. But in doing so, theyve pigeonholed progressive youth organizations and forced them to dramatically narrow the scope of their spending. This is not a sustainable model for cultivating or keepingtalent.

Now, thousands of future leaders of the progressive movement are watching as rising student debts, stagnating wages and unpaid internships close doors of opportunity to work in progressive politics.

There is too much to lose, and much to gain. Progressives must address the youth investment gap if they areto win in the future. If they do not, the movement will miss out on the diversity, inclusivityand energy of progressive young people.

Carlos Vera is the founder and executive director of Pay Our Interns. Follow him on Twitter:@carlosangeles25

You can readdiverse opinions from ourBoard of Contributorsand other writers ontheOpinion front page,on Twitter@USATOpinionand in our dailyOpinion newsletter.To submit a letter, comment or column, check oursubmission guidelines.

Read or Share this story: https://usat.ly/2pveKI6

Excerpt from:
Liberals need to close the millennials funding gap - USA TODAY

How liberals lost touch with the ‘left behind’ – Financial Times


Financial Times
How liberals lost touch with the 'left behind'
Financial Times
By 1942, there were just 12 democracies left in the world. But with the defeat of fascism and, a few decades later, the collapse of communism, liberal democracy looked like the wave of the future. Perhaps we had reached, in Francis Fukuyama's famous ...

View post:
How liberals lost touch with the 'left behind' - Financial Times