Archive for the ‘Liberals’ Category

NDP, Liberals neck and neck in BC polls, but Christy Clark could have edge – CBC.ca

Tuesday's provincial election in British Columbia is setting up to be the most uncertain and closest vote in over 20 years, as polls show the B.C. Liberals and B.C. New Democrats nearly tied in public support a split that could give the edge to the Liberals' Christy Clark over John Horganand the NDP.

According to the CBC's B.C. Poll Tracker, an aggregation of all public polls that will be updated throughout the day as the final polls of the campaign are published, the Liberals and NDP are tied at 39 per cent apiece.

That's a significant reversal of fortunes from a little over two weeks ago, when the gap between the two parties stood at seven points in the polls to the NDP's benefit.

Click or tap for full projection details.

The Greens follow in third at 19 per cent support, while about three per cent of British Columbians are expected to vote for other parties and independent candidates.

With these levels of support, the Liberals are narrowly favoured in the seat projection, with 44seats to 41for the NDP and two for the Greens.

While that points to the narrowest of majority governments, the B.C. Liberals have a higher seat ceiling and thus a better chance ofwinning than the NDP running 10,000 simulations with these seat ranges gives victory to the Liberals 72per cent of the time, with the NDP winning the most seats 28per cent of the time.

The odds of a minority government stand at aboutone-in-five significant for a province that hasn't had a minority government since the 1950s.

The seat projection model favours the Liberals in a close race largely because the party's regional support is more efficient than the NDP's. But whilethe race is otherwise a toss-up two polls published Monday morning by Mainstreet/Postmedia and Ipsos/Global News give the NDP a statistically insignificantone-point lead over the Liberals there are reasons to believe the Liberals could have the edge.

In the polls conducted partially or entirely inMay, three have given the NDP the lead by a single point while two have given the Liberals a lead of two to four points. That suggests that the Liberals have the higher upside than the NDP. The Liberals have also been trending upwards at the tail-end of the campaign, while the NDP has stagnated or dropped.

The Liberals also potentially have a turnout advantage. Mainstreet finds that the Liberals have stronger supporters and give the party a three-point lead among those voters who are most likely to vote and least likely to change their minds.

Both Mainstreet and Ipsos give the Liberals a significant lead among older British Columbians, who also vote in larger numbers.

On leadership, in six polls conducted during the campaign that have asked who voters think would be the best premier, Clark has placed ahead of Horgan in five of them.

Nevertheless, the margin is close enough in the polls that the popular vote could go in theNDP's favour. Which party will win the most seats, however, will depend on how those votes break down regionally.

In 2013, the B.C. Liberals won both the regions of Metro Vancouver and the Interior/North the former by about five points and the latter by about 13.

The Liberals still look set to win the Interior/North again, leading with 48per cent to 33per cent for the NDP. The Liberals will thus be looking to hold onto the seats they have in the Interior and potentiallypick up a few at the expense of the NDP. The trend line has been heading in the Liberals' direction in the region.

NDP Leader John Horgan gestures to indicate two days until election day while addressing supporters during a campaign stop in Vancouver on Sunday. (Darryl Dyck/Canadian Press)

Metro Vancouver, however, is trending against the Liberals. The polls now give the NDP about 42per cent to 38 per cent for the Liberals, a swing of some nine points from 2013. That has the potential to move a number of seats from the Liberals over to the NDP.

But can the New Democrats win enough new seats in Metro Vancouver to make up for a lack of gains or losses in the Interior? Horgan's election hopes lie in a strong showing in and around Vancouver.

Additionally, the New Democrats will need to minimize their losses on Vancouver Island.

After flirting with the lead earlier in the campaign, Andrew Weaver's Greens have since fallen back, dropping to about 28 per cent and into a tie with the Liberals. The NDP still leads on the island with 40per cent. But both the Liberals and NDP are trending below their 2013 levels of support on Vancouver Island, opening up some opportunities for the Greens.

Support for the Green Party, whose leader Andrew Weaver is seen above in Nanaimo, B.C., stands at 19 per cent a day before the vote. (Darryl Dyck/Canadian Press)

Attaining four seats and official party status in the B.C. legislature is within reach of the Greens, but it is looking like a bigger challenge than it was earlier in the campaign.

How the Greens do is perhaps the biggest unknown going into tomorrow's vote. Polls put the party at between 15 and 23 per cent support provincewide and between 20 and 35per cent support on Vancouver Island. Within those bands of support lie everything from a breakthrough to a disappointment for Weaver and the Greens, with significant implications on the performance of the other parties.

This all leaves the outcome of the B.C. election uncertain. The Liberals have a regional and turnout advantage that should give them the edge in a close race. They could also benefit from incumbency and so out-perform their polls, as has often been the case in other jurisdictions. That would turn a slim majority into a wider one.

The New Democrats could benefit from a breakthrough in Metro Vancouver or a decrease in Green support that, polls suggest, would boost the NDP more than the Liberals. But they could also under-perform their polls as they did in 2013.

And the Greens could prove to be efficient in getting their supporters out exactly where the party has a shot at winning seats giving them official party status and potentially the balance of power in a minority government. Or the Greens could under-shoot their polling average, as the party has often done elsewhere in Canada.

Considering the margins of error in polls and the regional dynamics at play, such a narrow gapbetween the New Democrats and the Liberals could result in any of the above outcomes without the polls seriously missing the mark.

So surprises could be in store. All will be revealed after voting closes at 8 p.m. on Tuesday night.

See more here:
NDP, Liberals neck and neck in BC polls, but Christy Clark could have edge - CBC.ca

Stop blaming identity politics: With white liberals like these, who needs the right wing? An error occurred. – Salon

Is there any problem in America not the fault of liberal progressives? Has anyone actually ever met a liberal? What do these people do for fun? Sneer about cultural appropriation, burn American flags, and mock old women wearing crosses?

The idea that every political, social and financial crisis in the United States has a liberal origin is not only the propaganda of right-wing tantrums, but increasingly since the surreal election of Donald Trump, an obsession of liberals themselves. Myopically fixated on their own masochism and pathetic insecurity, they have wasted precious airtime, intellectual energy and freelance budgets of popular publications in attempts to explain how exactly they are to blame for 62 million Americans driving or walking to the polls to vote for a historically illiterate fool whose character actually appears in worse shape than his acumen.

Bernie Sanders, a leftist rather than a liberal, was one of the first to incoherently assign the presidential loss to the failure of identity politics, failing to recognize that Donald Trump is the most powerful practitioner of identity politics in the world. Mark Lilla, a Columbia University professor, acted as eloquent parrot to Sanders when he wrote that the Democrats fixation on diversity cost them the election. Recently, Bill Maher, whose derangement seems to advance with every television appearance, told Jack Tapper that the Democratic Party failed in 2016 because its leaders made white people feel like a minority.

Caitlin Flanagan, an excellent writer regardless of the inanity of her topic, blames Bill Maher for Trumps victory, or more broadly, late night comedy. When Republicans see these harsh jokes, Flanagan explained about the humor of Stephen Colbert, Trevor Noah and Samantha Bee, they see exactly what Donald Trump has taught them: that the entire media landscape loathes them, their values, their family, and their religion.

One has to wonder: With liberals like these, who needs reactionaries? Trump voters told pollsters that diversity comes at the expense of whites and that the federal government, throughout American history, has provided too much assistance to black citizens. Maher, Lilla and Sanders would not identify the problem with the white electorate as racism, but insufficient coddling and pandering from Democrats. The crucial aim of American politics, according to the increasingly widespread view of opposition to identity politics, is to make white cowards and bigots feel that they have no need for growth, and that they are the center of the universe.

No one ever quite explains how even the most idealistic of Democrats could reach out to the 61 percent of Trump primary voters who believe that Barack Obama is an illegal immigrant born in Kenya and smuggled through customs as part of a Manchurian candidate conspiracy, but liberals will maintain that a large number of racists voting for a racist is somehow their fault.

Progressives were too politically correct or self-righteous, as a former Obama official phrased it for theAtlantic, and they are incapable of seeing beyond the blue bubble, to cite a boring bromide forever playing on repeat in television studios and radio stations across America.

All but the densest of observers will notice that all the self-flagellators share one common characteristic: they are white. People of color do not seem apologetic or stupefied over Trumps victory. Expertly, and often violently, acquainted with the anti-intellectual and resentful failures of white America, many black and Latino Americans are able to clearly identify the villain in the story.

When I asked a black friend and former coworker what she thought of Trumps triumph at the polls, just a week after the results, she expressed disgust and said, I wasnt surprised. I did not interpret her comprehension of Americas comfort with bigotry as an indictment of Clinton for not campaigning in Wisconsin or as criticism of overly zealous college students, satirical stand-up comics, or anyone else offered as a shield to deflect attention away from the real problems of American culture, and the refusal of white America to advance with an increasingly multicultural and multiethnic society.

In her essay on the evils of comedy, Flanagan writes, Somewhere along the way, the hosts of late night shows decided that they had carte blanche to insult not just the people within Trumps administration, but also the ordinary citizens who support Trump.

Emmett Rensin, writing for Vox, once crowned me the most smug of liberal essayists. So, as the smug liberal elitist out of touch with the real America, I would like to advance a radical notion: In a democracy where citizens are free to vote for their preferred candidate without coercion, the people most responsible for the outcome of an election, good or bad, are the voters.

Everyone is looking for someone to blame for the weird and dangerous reality of President Donald J. Trump. Well, here is a good place to start: the 62,904,682 people who voted for him. The Trump administration and the ordinary citizens who support him are not exactly disconnected. A Trump administration would not exist if not for the ordinary citizens Flanagan would like to romanticize.

I, like most anyone else who was horrified at the turnout, know and love people within the Trump coalition, but personal affection should not preclude acknowledgement that something is amiss with someone in their right mind supporting a con man who boasted of committing sexual assault; proclaimed that women deserve punishment for abortion; routinely insulted African-Americans, Mexicans and Muslims; mocked a disabled journalist; and demonstrated profound ignorance of the basic tenets of American history, law and governance.

The internal ombudsman of most liberals, especially in comparison to the shameless right wing, is a healthy feature of progressive politics. It encourages contemplation and reflection, often leading to helpful self-criticism. Taken to an extreme, however, it becomes a liability it preventsmovement, cloudsjudgment and obfuscatesreality.

Maybe womens studies professors, civil rights activists and provocative comedians all of whom, with their own tactics, are attempting to civilize and humanize American life are not responsible for the behavior of people who chanted build the wall or shouted bitch when Trump mentioned the name of his opponent. Maybe some element of American culture should hold adults accountable for their own actions. Maybe the problem is not making racists feel bad, but racism itself.

An important consequence of the liberal humiliation ritual is that it not only obscures genuine understanding of American culture, but insults or ignores the Americans who, even with comics cracking jokes and the occasional leftist on Twitter making a stupid remark, managed to make the right decision.

Flanagan and many others believe that mockery of religion helped usher voters into the arms of Trump. Black women are the most faithful Christians in the country, but 94 percent of them supported Clinton.

The smug elitism of liberals did not prevent 91 percent of black women or 82 percent of black men without a college degree, or a large majority of Latinos without higher education,from voting for Clinton.

The dedication of American culture to protecting the fragile white ego in denial of widespread white mediocrity is without limit. According to this worldview, black crack addicts in the 1980s and 90s represented a grave threat to civilization, whilewhite heroin junkies are the human face of a medical crisis. Black and Latino poverty is the result of laziness and lack of discipline, but poor white people are the victims of a worldwide economic conspiracy. Donald Trump is not the problem of the tens of millions of whites who voted for him, but the liberals who opposed him.

The colorblind and racially illiterate view of Sanders, Maher and company amplifies an odd interpretation of politics and sociology. White Americans are worthy of criticism only when they commit the ultimate sin criticizing other white Americans.

Visit link:
Stop blaming identity politics: With white liberals like these, who needs the right wing? An error occurred. - Salon

Liberals mock Obamacare repeal with ‘#ThingsJesusNeverSaid’ then conservatives hit back hard – TheBlaze.com

Following the House successfully voting to repeal Obamacare and replace it with the American Health Care Act, angry Democrats and liberals took to Twitter to mock Republicans with things Jesus never said.

In fact, on Friday and Saturday the hashtag #ThingsJesusNeverSaid was one of the highest trending topics on Twitter worldwide. At first, the hashtag was used to mock Republicans for allegedly removing the pre-existing conditions provision in Obamacare.

But the hashtag quickly devolved into broader criticisms of President Donald Trump and the Republican Party as a whole.

Users criticized the GOP for being against refugees and immigration, for wanting to replace Obamacare with a market-based solution, for advocating tax reform, for wanting to build a wall on the southern U.S.-Mexico border, among other current American political issues.

One user wrote: #ThingsJesusNeverSaid You have a pre-existing condition, I cant cure you.'

Another added: Build that wall #ThingsJesusNeverSaid.

Even a Catholic priest added to the rhetoric: Blessed are those whose mercy extends only to those who are like them. #ThingsJesusNeverSaid.

But the hashtag works both ways, liberals quickly learned.

Conservatives, Republicans and libertarians on Twitter were quick to hit back with some statements of their own, mostly focusing on the fact that Democrats and liberals alike generally advocate for abortion, which many contend is murder.

While others added other issues to the mix:

https://twitter.com/WayneDupreeShow/status/860840482485809153

It must be noted that despite the liberal outrage, the AHCA is not yet law. In fact, the Senate has not even voted on the bill yet, and its expected they will pass a different version of the law, complicating the law making process.

Go here to read the rest:
Liberals mock Obamacare repeal with '#ThingsJesusNeverSaid' then conservatives hit back hard - TheBlaze.com

How Liberals Use Compassion to Hurt People – Townhall

|

Posted: May 06, 2017 12:01 AM

Of course, most conservatives are well aware of the damage liberals do to minorities with their supposed compassion. Liberal compassion toward minorities consists of treating them like incompetents who cant do anything for themselves, fish-hooking them through the jaw with government assistance, and encouraging them to nurse grievances and feel like victims.

That is not compassionate and, as I note in my new book, 101 Things All Young Adults Should Know, it doesnt make anyones life better over the long haul.

Oh, but what about the government? Do you really want its help? Do you want to feel all those eyes burning into your back when you whip out those food stamps? Do you want to live in crummy government housing?

Do you want to jump through whatever hoops some dead-eyed bureaucrat comes up with so you can get just enough help to stay poor and miserable? Is that the sort of person you admire? Is that the one you grew up wanting to be? You should want more out of life than what the government is willing to give to you in return for your pride.

Whats more compassionate? Encouraging and helping people to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps, or trapping them in poverty, anger and misery long-term?

However, there is a much more insidious way liberals use compassion to hurt others that slips past many people.

If you pay attention, what youll notice is that the liberals who assure you that they are endlessly compassionate, sensitive, and tolerant only feel those emotions toward certain groups. In other words, their supposed compassion is incredibly selective.

So, the death of Harambe the Gorilla? Its a terrible tragedy. A baby whose continued existence would cut into Planned Parenthoods profit margins? They feel nothing.

A black thug who attacks a cop and gets shot to death? No justice, no peace! A police officer who gets murdered in the line of duty? They feel nothing.

Rioting students who disrupt a speaker and smash windows? Poor dears! They were triggered and their response was understandable. The conservative who was invited to campus to speak and the audience that was stopped from hearing him? They feel nothing.

Attacking the children of a Democrat? Scandalous! Outrageous! Whatever happened to decency in politics? Attacking the children of a Republican? Hahaha! Those late night comedians are so funny!

This is the ultimate liberal lie: weaponized compassion.

Once you choose which groups matter and which groups dont, then you control the conversation, the culture, and politics. Woe be unto you if youre in a group that liberals have no compassion for, because your problems will be treated as absolutely irrelevant by the school system, mainstream media, and Hollywood.

This is why liberals get so upset when someone says All lives matter instead of Black lives matter. Its because they desperately need to control whom we have compassion for and whom we dont. Since black Americans vote monolithically for the Democrat Party and falsely convincing them that theyre in grave danger of being shot by a cop at any moment might spur them to vote, liberals feel compassion over the issue. Do they care about police officers getting killed? Black on black violence? The victims of violent crime? No, because that doesnt benefit them.

Is compassion really compassion if its based almost entirely on political gain and virtue signaling? Apparently liberals think so.

Dont underestimate the impact of this tactic. Deciding which people in society we are supposed to all empathize with and which we are indifferent to is a powerful tool.

Take Jimmy Kimmels recent speech about his baby nearly dying shortly after he was born. Its certainly a sad situation, and no one wants to see someones child become seriously ill. However, here we have a man worth 35 million dollars who wants other people to pay for his childs health care. Thats obnoxious. Worse yet, Kimmel falsely indicated that babies like his son that were born ill werent covered before Obamacare. Thats simply not true. Sure, anybody can understand Kimmels emotional reaction to his sons illness, but that doesnt mean its okay for him to lie or exploit his childs illness to push his grubby political agenda.

Furthermore, the coverage of Kimmels comments were fawning because were all supposed to feel infinite compassion for his situation and thus must do whatever liberals want us to do -- which in this case is to continue to support Obamacare despite the fact that its falling apart and hurting a lot of people.

As my friend Mary Katharine Ham noted (edited slightly), "To many, it only matters when people are potentially hurt by changes to Obamacare, not actually hurt by Obamacare."

Why does a celebrity like Jimmy Kimmel deserve our compassion for his admittedly difficult situation while tens of millions of ordinary Americans who have lost plans, lost doctors and have seen their deductibles and premiums skyrocket into the stratosphere arent given the same courtesy? The number of people hurt by Obamacare vastly outnumber the people who have been helped, so why dont they deserve some compassion? Why dont their struggles matter too?

Its because liberals only feel compassion when they think it benefits them and in their minds; no one else deserves an ounce of sympathy, compassion or even human decency. Thats not real compassion. Thats a sickness masquerading as compassion.

Michigan Targets Parents in Genital Mutilation Investigation

More:
How Liberals Use Compassion to Hurt People - Townhall

The new doomsayers taking up arms and preparing for catastrophe: American liberals – Quartz

A month before the 2016 US presidential election, Colin Waugh and his wife bought their first firearm.

Donald Trumps campaign was taking an unprecedented turn, with the candidate baiting gun-rights supporters to exert their influence and suggesting that a loss in November would be evidence of a rigged system. The gun, as Waugh frames it, was a form of insurance in case American democracy dissolved into a quasi-Mad Max society, and liberals became the hunted.

When Trump won, Waugh felt numb. His wife was catatonic. They both feared for their lives. The couple, liberal Mississippians and stalwart Obama supporters, were not the primary targets of the right-wing vitriol directed primarily at Latino immigrants and Muslims during Trumps campaign. But from Waughs liberal perch, seeing the new presidents supporters on the news screaming Well take back our country! and hearing similar sentiments from conservatives in his home state, even from friends, felt like a genuine threat.

For the first time in my life, I realized my own freedom was my own responsibility, says Waugh. I could no longer trust Trump, or Congress, to reassure my rights and liberties would remain in place.

But even though he sought self-sufficiency in his new America, Waugh realized he would need a new community of sorts. So on Nov. 10, 2016, Waugh logged onto Facebook and set up the Liberal Prepper.

As the groups name suggests, the Liberal Preppers 2,500 members are united by two things: their political leanings, and a desire to learn how to prepto learn the various skills and tactics that would help an individual survive catastrophic events within ones community. It was founded with the following disclaimer, penned by Waugh: We welcome all individuals who are center and left of center politically. We do not knowingly accept conservatives, Trump supporters, into this group.

If somebodys a dick, we boot themPrior to accepting members, the groups administrators typically vet requestors for alt-right iconography. According to Kenny Stabler, the current moderator, any anti-liberal users that get past the vetting process usually are ejected not long after their first snowflake comment. If somebodys a dick, we boot them, he says.

Despite their shared politics, members individual reasons for prepping vary. Some fear a Trump-triggered nuclear war; others are worried about economic collapse. Nicole Pilt is a Liberal Prepper who says that the nationalist rhetoric now coursing through Western society fuelled her desire to prep. She says shes worried about the plethora of natural and social disasters that are occurring. Many of the Preppers reasons for joining are underlined by a distrust of governmenta new sentiment for many Democratsand the resulting fear for ones safety.

Trump is a clown, but with the idiot congress we have, I am concerned that well have an economic collapse, says Stabler. The election freaked me out because after all this time, people are still voting Republican. Jobs pay so little and the economy is so fragile. That scares me more than some redneck morons.

Until recently, prepping has primarily been associated with right-wing, second-amendment survivalists. Since the 2016 election, as well as the rise of nationalism and anti-globalist sentiment on both sides of the Atlantic, more folks on the left end of the political spectrum have begun to believe that disaster is impending. In response to this epiphany, Facebook groups such as the Liberal Prepper have gained steam, operating as educational platforms for liberals interested in prepping.

The terms survivalists and preppers are occasionally used interchangeably, but Chad Huddleston, a professor of anthropology at Southern Illinois University-Edwardsville who has studied prepping, believes ideology plays a significant role in distinguishing the two.

Survivalism, he says, is a term largely associated with doomsday conspiracy theorists and right-wing extremists seen from the 1970s to the 1990s, including anti-government militias, fundamentalists, and terrorists. According to Huddleston, historic figures like the Unabomber Ted Kaczynski and Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh continue to be mythologized among some survivalists. More recent incarnations of survivalism include far-right patriot movements like the 3 Percenters, founded in response to Barack Obamas 2008 electoral win, and the Oath Keepers, comprised of both current and former military veterans as well as law-enforcement officials whose stated mission is to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Both organizations have caught the attention of the Southern Poverty Law Center, which lists them as extremist antigovernment groups.

Prepping, on the other hand, is a relatively new term adopted by practitioners who wanted to distance themselves from those radical ideologies. It was meant to be the apolitical version of survivalist, though by now the term has become a bit of a catchall. Nobody wants to call themselves a survivalist because of the baggage, says Huddleston. They call themselves preppers but when you talk to them, you realize theyre [often] old-school, anti-government militias. They just put on a new category.

The genesis event for many nonpartisan preppers, says Huddleston, was Hurricane Katrina in 2005. At the time, both the citizens of New Orleans as well as news-watchers around the nation witnessed the governments fallibility. The Bush administration, it seemed, could not (or would not) react to the disaster with the level of commitment and haste needed, exacerbating the suffering of thousands in the wake of the deadly storm.. The 2008 financial crisis stoked additional fear, as Americans began to see the deep vulnerabilities in the US housing market and the nations financial system.

The Liberal Preppers and others like them may seem fringe-y or unreasonably paranoid at first glance, but prepping is starting to move more and more into the mainstream. On Facebook alone, there are hundreds prepping-focused groups searchable with the phrase Preppers (and plenty of others with Survivalists); some have memberships as large as 60,000.

Over 50% of Silicon Valleys upper class owns hideaway property in either the US or abroad.Some of the countrys most influential people have latched onto the trend. Though they might not consider themselves preppers, Silicon Valleys rich and elite are clearly thinking along the same lines as Waugh and Stabler. Earlier this year, LinkedIn co-founder and venture capitalist Reid Hoffman told the New Yorker that he estimates over 50% of Silicon Valleys upper class owns hideaway property in either the US or abroad (New Zealand is a popular choice among the tech community, with new residents including the likes of Peter Thiel); and Steve Huffman, the co-founder and CEO of Reddit, has said he got LASIK so he wouldnt be burdened by his deficiency come societal collapse. And then, of course, theres SpaceXs Elon Musk, who wants to help humanity populate Mars as fast as possible as an answer to mans inevitable extinction on Earth.

Prepping is not a uniquely US phenomenon, although it has different flavors in different parts of the world. A scale of peoples trust in their [nations] government probably reflects how people prep, Huddleston says. Preppers in Scandinavian countries differ from their Stateside counterparts, predominantly because they wholeheartedly believe their government would eventually save them in a time of danger. According to Huddleston, in that region of the world, preppers focus on surviving disaster in the short-term. Weapons are also not a typical feature of Scandinavian prepping, because there, prepping is less about defending property and person, but rather being able to get away from danger quickly and safely.

Despite the trend, it took Trump and one worried Mississippian to trigger the formation of the first large, out-in-the-open left-leaning community. Of the hundreds of prepper groups on Facebook, there are still only handfuls that outwardly promote themselves as liberal or welcoming of similar politicsand most are offshoots from the Liberal Prepper, which seems to be the biggest left-leaning prepper community to date. It grew rapidly: Stabler says it had only 30 or so members in the early days, then itd jump to 100 or so, then more each time it got a mention in the media.

Many of the more experienced Liberal Preppers members are refugees from other survivalist groups who sought out a more politically like-minded community. Now, they are educating people such as ourselvesliberals, who you never think would prep, says Waugh. Some members have shared seemingly advanced techniques, like how evacuate from ones home without leaving a trail; others offer more rudimentary (but probably more useful) survival skills like fire-starting and water-purification methods. They are helping newbies daily, who are noticing whats going on and think its really scary; who think I want to protect my family regardless of the type of disaster, says Waugh.

Seth Hammond, an outdoorsman now living in Washington state, has been prepping for a decade or so, long before Trump entered the White House. While living in Massachusetts during the Blizzard of 1978, Hammond learned that the government cantand maybe even wontalways help you out. To this day, he remembers the hundreds of New England residents left in freezing temperatures without heat, water, or electricity for over a week. If people ran out of food, they couldnt get groceries for days; Hammond decided it was essential to learn to survive without modern amenities.

Despite his years of prepping, Hammond, too, says he has become wiser since joining the group. But really what amazes Hammond about the Liberal Prepper is the level of respect and open-mindedness maintained in group discussions, compared to other online prepper and survivalist forums. He says that if theres any sort of silver lining to Trumps election for the prepping community, its this: Suddenly there are a lot more like-minded individuals adding new perspectives to these niche discussions. Things that are verboten elsewhereliberals in metropolitan communities who want to learn how to use guns, for exampleare welcome at groups like the Liberal Prepper, which offer the space to ask these questions.

There are not a lot of places where youll get a rational discussion where people can disagree about firearms in America but you can among this group, says Hammond. So its like this dialogue going on between this group of adults who may have different levels of skill sets in the thing theyre trying to figure outbut [are] having [an] adult conversation about the politics around it. Thats an interesting dynamic.

It may seem strange that thousands across the nation are deciding to learn horticulture and how to clean a rifle because they think there might be an economic collapse sometime in the future. But Art Markman, a professor of psychology at the University of Texas-Austin who researches decision-making, says prepping isnt outside the bounds of normal human responses to fear.

Its an extreme reaction on their part, but not an inappropriate oneThere is enough news out there now that can be frightening that its an extreme reaction on their part, but not an inappropriate one, he says. People are forever trying to wrest control over situations that feel beyond their own control or understanding. This might involve focusing on aspects of their lives where they feel they are taking charge, or ascribing responsibility to a higher power, like religion.

The preppers are doing the thing that fits with their belief system that makes sense for taking control over the situation, Markman says. And because it emerges from a deep belief that we just cant trust the institutions around us, it is a rational response to that set of beliefs.

Learning the survival techniques that are core to prepping might even provide long-term health benefits, Markman says.

In the short term, stress can be a good thing: The sudden surge of adrenaline, as well as the increase of cortisol, can help us in situations like potentially violent conflicts. But experiencing stress for a long period of time is damaging. Markman uses the case of a divorce that drags on for six months as an example: the divorcees might self-medicate with alcohol, but a healthier response is to take up projects like learning to play an instrument or remodeling a house, which essentially shelters them from the stress response. He says that for members of the Liberal Prepper, whose long-term stressor is the helplessness they feel about the threat (whether real or not) of apocalyptic war or economic collapse, learning some homesteading techniques might actually help to remove their stressors.

In the long term, Markman says, if prepping becomes this way of life, it keeps the fearful stuff at baybecause as far as youre concerned, unlike everybody else, youre doing something concrete.

According to Stabler, liberals were learning how to ensure their safety in case of a disaster long before Trumps presidency. For years, left-leaning Americans interested in survival practicespicking up outdoor skills, learning how to can and preserve food properly, even taking notes on how to use a gun without hurting ones selflurked on places like the red-hued Survivalist Boards. But they were cautious about their encroachment on right-wing territory, as these discussion boards were not exactly welcoming of liberal perspectives.

[Wed] have to skip past threads where we were either a bunch of vile and horrible liberals, or how were a bunch of pussy snowflakes, says Stabler. A big draw of the Liberal Prepper, he says, is knowing that somewhere on the internet, there is a bit of peaceful alternative where everybodys not a giant dickhole praying for the end of the world. He believes that whether members join because theyre terrified of Trump, or war, or a financial meltdown, what they really get out of the Liberal Prepper is a safe space for liberals to explore a potentially unpopular worldview.

Capitalism is getting more brutal, and war is big business, Stabler says. So probably peoplegoing on the internet, getting educated, understanding a little bit more whats going on, isnt such a bad idea.

The idea of a community where people could learn these sorts of skills from others is what got Stabler to take prepping seriously in the first place. I had plans and a space, some land to go to if it gets ugly in the city, says Stabler. And a group of people with a variety of skills that are able to actually contribute, thats important. So I was more into the community than actual prepping itself.

The community vibe has attracted all sorts of people, some with backgrounds nothing like youd expectlike Zachary, a lawyer and mindfulness instructor in Lexington, Kentucky. Although he says he hasnt committed to purchasing backup water or food supplies just yet, since joining, Zachary (who asked that his full name be withheld) bought some silver and gold on other preppers advice. Its a financial security measure, he says, in case the global stock market crashes, paper money becomes worthless, and mass panic ensues.

Occasionally, Zachary engages in ethics debates with other Liberal Preppers. Recently, he asked whether the group members would be okay shooting another human during a civil war or nuclear holocaust. (He says that the answer is, more often than not, yes.)

Stabler says the group he moderates has not organized any meet-ups in the real world, but over the past few months, Zachary has connected with a handful of members offline, and has guided several through mindfulness sessions over the phone. Some of them [have] been absolutely traumatized, Zachary says. They know somethings bad, that somethings coming, but also the fear is compounded by a world just in agonytheyre afraid.

Preppers and survivalists are detailing their story with a smile.Not everyone is so sympathetic. Richard Mitchell, author of the 2002 book Dancing at Armageddon, an in-depth expos of survivalist culture in America, is skeptical that members of the Liberal Prepper are motivated to accumulate survival gear by a legitimate concern for their safety. Having embedded himself with survivalists for over a dozen years, he believes that fear is not the initial impetus at allthats the materialist narrative. In his eyes, preppers and survivalists are detailing their story with a smile.

Theyre having fun doing this, says Mitchell. Its more than just fun. Its a kind of actualization. He describes a survivalist he interviewed, whose employment involved maintaining the citys sewage system. In his garage, he had stored disinfectant, odor treatment, and iodine treatment, among other chemicals. According to Mitchell, the sanitation expert claimed all of this was for some future crisis, when, inevitably, a terrorist group will fry the citys computers, causing a flooding of the metropolitan community that would leave people to their armpits in shit water, and hell be there ready to fix it.

Mr. Poop was not terrified, says Mitchell. He was very satisfied with his solutions to these problems.

Whether or not Mitchell is right about the underlying motivations behind prepping, the vast majority of preppers are not attracted to the media spotlight, even as their worldview gains more and more mainstream acceptance. Waugh, who appeared on a segment of Fox News Watters World this past March, says he left the Facebook group after receiving death threats from right-wing survivalists for being a liberal doomsday prepper, while the exposure made some members of the Liberal Preppers feel paranoid; others thought that Waugh was just narcissistic. A number of the Liberal Preppers members, including an administrator, declined requests for interviews; one member posted a warning regarding the presence of a Quartz reporter in the group.

Stabler says many in the group keep a low-profile because, if a crisis occurs, a person who reveals their status as a prepper will have unintentionally tipped his hand, saying Heres a grocery list, heres everything I have, and could wind up cornered into sharing his carefully rationed canned-goods with someone who never saw the end coming. Many also want to avoid having to explain to non-preppers why theyve taken up the task of preparing for disastersnobody wants to be called crazy or invite the negative attention that Waugh endured.

Some are ready to fight, though, if it comes to it.

Theyre laughing at us, thinking that were people with no guns, Stabler says of right-wing survivalists. But theres an attitude with some of us who are like, Bitch, bring it. Come see the snowflake.

See the rest here:
The new doomsayers taking up arms and preparing for catastrophe: American liberals - Quartz