Mediaboss Marketing

Emily Ekins and Matthew Feeney 4:34 p.m. ET April 20, 2017

At the Potter House Church on July 13, 2016, in Dallas.(Photo: Justin Sullivan, Getty Images)

We have to give power back to the police, Donald Trump proclaimed during his campaign, and earlier this year he delivered ... or so he thinks. The early weeks of Trumps presidency indeed match his campaign rhetoric, replete with an executive order seeking to make assault against police officers a federal crime.

Americans are understandably divided by Trumps law and order approach to policing reform. Research suggests Americans reactions to Trumps policies will be shaped both by their own experiences with police and by their moral predispositions.

It starts with race. Anyone discussing policing in the U.S. needs to grapple with the fact that there is a wide racial divide in perception of police performance.

A Cato Institute survey found a strikingly high number 73% of African Americans and 54% of Hispanics believe thatpolice are too quick to resort to deadly force with citizens. Only 35% of whites agree. Similarly, African Americans and Hispanics are also 20 to 30 points less likely than whites to believe that their local police treat all racial groups equally or are held accountable for misconduct.

Different personal and vicarious experiences with the police undergird this divide.

The survey found that African Americans are nearlytwice as likely as white Americans to report police swearing at them or to knowsomeone physically mistreated by police.

Related content:

Investigate policing in the USA: Our view

On prison reform, should nation follow in footsteps of Louisiana?: Column

Officers fired after video shows handcuffed suspect stomped on the head

Interestingly enough, the study also found that African Americans report being stopped by police disproportionately more than whites as their incomes rise. This suggeststhat police are disproportionately scrutinizing black drivers in nice cars or in nice neighborhoods. Overall, higher-income African Americans report being stopped about 1.5 times more frequently than higher-income white Americans (and lower-income black and white Americans as well).

But what explains how the majority of Americans evaluate the police, given that most Americans havent had negative interactions with them? For instance, despite Republicans and Democrats having access to the same video footage of police shootings in previous years, survey data show that theyve reached dramatically different conclusions.

Strong majorities of Republicans believe that police only use deadly force when necessary (80%), are impartial (78%) and courteous (74%), and are held accountable for their actions(76%). This stands in contrast to Democrats, among whom a majority believe police are too quick to use lethal force (63%), fail to be impartial (60%), and arent held accountable (59%). Race cant explain this pattern: It persists among white Republicans and white Democrats as well.

So why do Democrats tend to believe that policing suffers from systemic problems, while Republicans think problems are isolated or confined to bad apples? Social psychology may offer some answers.

Social psychologists havefoundthat moral judgments strongly affect evaluations of controversial facts. Before weve even had a chance to sort through the empirical evidence, our minds tend tomake rapid effortless moral judgments. We then engage inpost-hoc reasoningto defend our conclusions.

In sum, people often engage in what scientists call motivated reasoning, where moral judgments come first and the justifications come later.

While each of usshares the same moral instinctsto one degree or another, some moral commitments aremore salientthan others to liberals or conservatives.

Data show conservatives placegreater emphasis on societal orderand thus tend to be moredeferential toward authority figureslike the police. Likewise, respect for authority figures may significantly drive positive attitudes toward the police, irrespective of the circumstances, particularly among conservatives.

In contrast, liberals are inclined to bemore skeptical of authority figures and to empathize moreparticularly with vulnerable groupswho report disparate treatment from the police, such as African Americans. This general propensity to empathizeis a significant predictor of white Democrats belief that the justice system is racially biased.

Naturally, there are exceptions. Not every Democrat is skeptical of the police, and not every Republican is deferential to authority. Nevertheless, data clearly showus a clear divide when it comes to how partisans think about authority.

With that in mind, policing reform is possible, but its hard. The U.S. is a vast and diverse country with about 18,000 law enforcement agencies. Widespread and comprehensive reform in such an environment is difficult. Yet there are areas of emerging consensus, with clear majorities across partisan and racial groups supporting body cameras and independent agencies investigating police misconduct.

When tackling policing reform, Trumpshould put himself in other peoples shoes. There are many law-abiding Americans who shudder when they hear about giving power back to the police, and Trump would be well served to understand why.

Emily Ekinsis a political scientist and director of polling at the Cato Institute. Matthew Feeney is a policy analyst at the Cato Institute.

Read or Share this story: http://usat.ly/2p0FymJ

Continued here:
Why liberals and conservatives disagree on police: Column - USA TODAY

There is a something going on within the Ontario Liberal party right now that carries a distinct aroma. Its hard to put a finger on, but it bears more than a hint of Hillary Clinton.

The Toronto Star, which lives to promote eternal Liberal rule, has been dropping heavy hints that Premier Kathleen Wynne ought to give some thought to retirement, clearing the way for a more popular person to lead the party into next years election, presuming one could be found. On Tuesday it ran a front-page story in which unnamed (i.e. very nervous) Liberals shared their frustration at Wynnes extreme unpopularity, and the dark portents it carries. One clearly perplexed loyalist shared what must be a common complaint: not only is Wynne tracking way behind the opposition Tories, but shes way behind a Tory party led by Patrick Brown.

According to the Star report: Theres no way we should lose to Patrick Brown hes an empty suit with no plan.

Another Liberal complained: If our vote collapses, theres a very real possibility (NDP leader) Andrea Horwath could be the next premier of Ontario Andrea is more dangerous to us than Patrick.

If this sounds vaguely familiar it may be because its exactly the problem that vexed members of the Clinton campaign team as they struggled to understand how their dear leader could possibly be doing so badly against two such obvious (to them) lightweights as Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump.

To Clintonites, it was inconceivable that so many Democrats could prefer Sanders, the wild-eyed socialist senator from Vermont, to Clinton, the former FLOTUS, senator and secretary of state. Once Clinton managed, barely, to wrestle the party nomination from Sanders, they were even more baffled that she had such trouble putting any distance between herself and Donald Trump, the crude, cartoonish, ill-informed reality TV star who owned a bunch of real estate in New York. Right down to election night they refused to consider the possibility that Americans might actually prefer Trump. Clinton herself had to be nudged, twice, by Barack Obama to pick up the phone and concede defeat, long after it was clear all hope was lost.

You get that same sense of disbelief and perhaps a touch of denial from Ontario Liberals, and not a few Tory sympathizers as well. Much as voters express dislike of Wynne and the deeply indebted, overburdened and overregulated province her Liberals have created, they find it difficult to accept that voters will opt for Brown instead. In the 19 months since he unexpectedly won the Progressive Conservative leadership hes barely scratched the surface of public awareness. Image-wise hes had all the impact of weak tea.

Hes so little-known that Liberals struggle to smear him. Theyd like to trash him as a hard-right social conservative ex-Harperite who hates immigrants and would impose extremist values on an unsuspecting province, but cant make it stick. Perhaps thats because Brown won the nomination by relentlessly courting ethnic Ontarians in towns and cities across the province. In February he easily evaded a Liberal trap, speaking firmly in favour of a motion condemning Islamophobia. Whether its hate against any faith, its wrong. I will always stand in opposition to any form of hate. Islamophobia is a problem and we must stand up against it, he asserted.

Hes even spoiled Liberal hopes of tarring as a knuckle-dragging climate-change denier, pledging party support for a carbon tax, albeit one he says will return the money to Ontarians rather than spending it on new projects as the Liberals plan to do.

The Liberals won the past three elections with a great deal of help from stumbles by their opponents. They are counting heavily on Brown to help them do that again given their track record, and the deep well of dissatisfaction percolating through the province, its almost all they have to cling to. Their success in escaping defeat so often in the past means few prognosticators are willing to write off their ability to do so again, just as the U.S. press overwhelmingly resisted accepting that Clinton could indeed lose an election to Donald Trump. No one liked Dalton McGuinty much either, and he won three times, right? Maybe Ontarians are just that addle-brained that theyll continually vote for a government they cant stand, who knows?

A new book on the Clinton defeat puts her loss down to a monumental sense of hubris within the campaign and a mountain of mistakes and misjudgements that finally caught up to her. Americans, it turned out, had had enough of Hillary Clinton, and wanted someone else. Ontario Liberals dont want to believe that can happen here. But people are funny, and when theyve had enough, theyve had enough.

National Post

Read this article:
Kelly McParland: Ontario's delusional Liberals set course for Clinton-style oblivion - National Post

B.C. NDP Leader John Horgan refused again Friday to say how his party would pay for its promised $1.7 billion elimination of MSP premiums, amid renewed attacks that hes simply delaying announcing the inevitable tax hike needed to cover the costs until after the election.

Horgan sidestepped questions about why two of his candidates have publicly indicated the Medical Services Plan premiums would be rolled into income tax should the NDP win the May 9 election, potentially resulting in higher income taxes for some B.C. residents.

Instead, he insisted hed hire an independent panel to look at ways to eliminate the MSP premiums which are set to bring in $1.7 billion in revenue next year by the end of his first term in office.

Im not prepared to speculate on what the panel will come up with because that prejudges the work, Horgan told reporters while campaigning in Vancouver.

You dont put people in place, and ask them for their advice, and prejudge it. So Im going to hear what they have to say. The bottom line I have, is they protect public services and we ensure low- and middle-income people are protected.

The B.C. Liberals pounced on the apparent disconnect, highlighting how NDP candidates Carole James and Gary Holman have both said in recent days that MSP would be moved into the progressive tax system, otherwise known as income tax.

What Mr. Horgan is trying to do is evade the issue by punting it onto a panel to be dealt with later, so people dont notice they have to pay more taxes in the future, said Andrew Wilkinson, the Liberal candidate for Vancouver-Quilchena. People need to know if they are facing that bill or not.

James has said that her party plans to roll premiums into income tax on a progressive basis, with the highest earners paying the highest premiums.

The key principle is that it looks at a progressive approach, she said. Right now with MSP, whether you make $1 million or $35,000, your families pay the same amount of MSP. Thats the principle that will be gone.

She also pointed out that her party expects at least $77 million in savings from eliminating the MSP fee collection system.

James said part of the NDPs consultation will look at how other provinces collect their health care premiums. In Ontarios income tax-based system, for example, people who earn less than $20,000 annually pay nothing additional. That scales up to $300 for incomes over $25,000 and tops out at $900 for anyone with taxable earnings over $200,600.

The Liberals, too, have been criticized for not explaining their MSP promises. The party said in February it would cut rates by 50 per cent for many users in 2018, and eliminate MSP entirely in the future when the economy allows.

In an interview Thursday, the Liberals Mike de Jong said any further MSP cuts would be unlikely under a Liberal government before the end of the next term.

If the economy grows at precisely the rate we forecast it to grow, we wouldnt be able to do anything else, de Jong said.

blindsay@postmedia.com

rshaw@postmedia.com

CLICK HERE to report a typo.

Is there more to this story? Wed like to hear from you about this or any other stories you think we should know about. Email vantips@postmedia.com.

Visit link:
Liberals pounce on NDP's mixed MSP messages - The Province

Cindy Lamoureuxformally announced her bid to become the next leader of the Manitoba Liberals in style on Friday.

"This is something I'm very excited about," Lamoureux said, flanked by supporters moments after shepulledup outside the Manitoba Legislature on a motorcycle. "I love my province, I love my city and the people who live here in Manitoba and I want to be able to continue to work for Manitobans."

The 25-year-old secured one of three seats in the legislature for the Liberals last spring during the provincial election.

She wants to fill the vacancy left by Rana Bokhari. The former party leader lost the Fort Rouge constituency to NDP MLA Wab Kinewin the last provincial election and a month later, Bokhari announced she would step down.

Leadership candidates will have to put up $5,000 in a combination of cash andmembership sales, gather 100 nomination signatures and be vetted by a party committee before officially entering the race.

Cindy Lamoureux credits her father for getting her interested in politics at an early age. (Tyson Koschik/CBC)

She credited her father, Liberal MP and longtime MLA Kevin Lamoureux, with sparking her interest in politics at an early age.

The rookie representative for the Burrows constituency refused to talk politics or reveal details about her platform on Thursday. She instead addressed concerns about her age, andhow the Manitoba Liberals "desperately need" a leader who can take charge and boost fundraising for the party.

"Look, I recognize I am young.I am 25. I'm very transparent about that.I do think that I look younger than I am. That might catch up withme in a career in politics," she said.

"I know that I don't know everything, but I do know that here in Manitoba, we have skilled people, talented and passionate people, and I, as an individual, I am willing to listen. I want to listen. I am eager to learn and I am open-minded and I hope Manitobans will see that."

Lamoureux pointed to former Manitoba premier Edward Schreyer as proof that age doesn't mean everything.

Schreyer went on to serve as Governor General of Canada, but earlier in his career, he was the youngest person ever to be electedin Manitoba. He was 22 when he was voted in as MLA for Brokenheadin 1958.

"That is such an inspiration for me. That is why I am optimistic about this opportunity," Lamoureux said, adding the fact that she was elected is proof she is ready to rise in the Liberals'ranks.

"I think my age is a wonderful asset. I am taking full advantage of it," she said. "People are always saying, 'Young people are the future.' No, young people are today, so allow us that opportunity to shine."

The party will vote for next leader on Oct. 21.

As for the choice to roll up to the cameras on her hog, Lamoureux said was just taking advantage of the nice weather

"I believe in the old saying, 'Work hard, play hard.' I enjoy my summers and part of that is riding my motorcycle," she said, adding she has been dirt biking since she was 10.

Excerpt from:
Cindy Lamoureux makes leadership bid for Manitoba Liberals - CBC.ca

As many environmentalists and scientists worry that the United States is retreating from the fight against global climate change, acclaimed novelist Jonathan Franzen warned Tuesday that preoccupation with the issue is actually diverting attention from more immediate threats to nature.

In a talk at the Harvard Graduate School of Design, Franzen said the focus on preventing long-term changes to climate a cause he contends has largely been lost leaves scant resources for saving endangered species and other short-term ecological needs.

When it comes to the environment, climate now has an absolute lock on the liberal imagination, Franzen said. Any attempt to change the subject, even if you are trying to change it to the epic extinction event that human beings are already creating without the help of climate change, is an offense against that religion.

The author of such novels as The Corrections, Freedom, and Purity, as well as several works of nonfiction, Franzen spoke at Gund Hall as part of the Graduate School of Designs Rouse Visiting Artist Lecture Series.

Diane E. Davis, chair of the Schools Department of Urban Planning and Design, introduced Franzen, with whom she shares St. Louis roots, as a quintessentially urban writer, a man concerned not just with the dilemmas of modernity but also deeply cognizant of the power of place, space, and territory in creating the context of human experience.

But it was his passion for the environment and for protecting free speech, as well as his reflections on the current political climate, that occupied Franzen in his lecture.

Franzen, an ardent bird watcher, drew the wrath of fellow environmentalists for committing what he termed offenses against liberal orthodoxy in a 2015 New Yorker article on climate change and the environment. The piece expressed skepticism that the world would take the radical actions necessary to prevent catastrophic climate change, Franzen said, and argued wed be too late even if we did.

Franzen also took issue with claims by some progressives that the reason the United States cant really get serious about reducing its carbon emissions is that fossil fuel corporations are sponsoring denialists and buying elections. He acknowledged that this behavior occurs, but said that the issue is more complicated.

The problem really is not that democracy is being prevented so much as that democracy is occurring. Its precisely the citizens in the major carbon-emitting democracies who benefit from cheap gasoline and global trade, he said, adding that the cost of that pollution is borne heavily by people in undeveloped nations like Bangladesh.

Franzen said he saw a silver lining for the environment in the election of Trump, noting that such actions as the administrations recent rejection of a petition to ban use of a harmful pesticide could remind people that there are other issues besides climate change that matter right now.

A narrow focus on global warming is also a poor strategy for mobilizing public support for the environment, Franzen said.

Ordinary Americans understand apparently better than the liberal elite does that theres precisely nothing that any individual can do about climate change nothing except feel guilty, he said. And guilt is one of the least effective human motivators.

Franzen took aim at progressives on several other issues, including for actions he said undermine free expression. He cited recent protests mounted at the University of California, Berkeley, and Middlebury College against planned appearances by controversial speakers. Franzen said the actions amounted to suppressing free speech.

He also directed his ire at Americans focused on simply denouncing President Trump instead of trying to understand and maybe win over the swing voters who responded to the Trump message of anti-elitism and anti-global nationalism. The effect, he said, has been to deepen the liberal silo, not see beyond it.

By Clea Simon, Harvard Correspondent | April 19, 2017

Read the original post:
Jonathan Franzen has some choice words for liberals - Harvard Gazette