Archive for the ‘Liberals’ Category

Anti-fascist radicals: Liberals don’t realize the serious danger of the alt-right – Salon

Since the election of Donald Trump, liberals and leftists have been discussing how to best respond to American conservatisms transformation from a shopworn, Cold War, anti-government philosophy into something else.

To the anarchists and socialists who consider themselves part of the global antifa movement (an abbreviation for anti-fascist), the transition currently taking place on the right is all too familiar. The rise of the alt-right and white nationalism within the U.S. is something the mainstream left doesnt take seriously enough, they say, even as many Democrats compare Donald Trump to Adolf Hitler.

If it is actually true that the civic nationalism of Trump and his top strategist Steve Bannon are helping to lay the groundwork for a more radical right intentionally or otherwise then their self-described opponents on the left need to do more than wear safety pins and post Facebook denunciations of the president they didnt vote for.

As Natasha Lennard wrote earlier this year at the Nation, coming to such a realization is difficult for many on the left. (Lennard is a former staff writer for Salon.) Despite their posture of desiring radical change, most are actually conservative in a certain sense:

Liberals cling to institutions: They begged to no avail for faithless electors, they see evisceration in a friendly late-night talk-show debate, they put faith in investigations and justice with regards to Russian interference and business conflicts of interest. They grasp at hypotheticals about who could have won, were things not as they in fact are. For political subjects so tied to the mythos of Reason, it is liberals who now seem deranged.

Instead of merely talking among themselves about opposing racism, say the antifa activists, leftists need to take direct action to make being a white nationalist as difficult as possible. Thats why many antifas have concentrated their efforts on such tactics as doing targeting the financial means of support of websites they see as enabling or promoting fascist views, and even engaging in physical acts of assault against members of the far right.

Only by fighting and destroying fascism can we actually defeat it, an anonymous members of the website Its Going Down told Salon via email.

The antifas anonymity is one of several superficial characteristics they share with their bitter rivals on the alt-right. Another is that they take politics much more soberly than their less extreme counterparts. For the antifas, understanding that white nationalists are deadly serious about instigating a racial holy war is the key to countering them.

During the rise of the Nazi regime in Germany, while anarchists and communists were literally fighting the fascists in the streets, the liberals and social democrats attempted to debate the Nazis point for point in the halls of power, the anonymous activist continued. This did nothing, and also normalized the positions of the Nazis and also made them into legitimate positions.

The center-leftsdesire for an open society is itscritical weakness, a Nebraska-based antifa collective told Salon via email.

Liberalism [has] proven itself unable to prevent the rise of fascism over and over again, the activists said. By the time liberals are comfortable with cracking down on fascism, its almost always too late. Antifa wants to make sure that no roots can take hold; that every attempt to organize and recruit for the fascist agenda is physically confronted and shut down.

Beyond targeting far-right activists financial means and showing up to physically confront them at their events, many antifas have made it their mission to expose the true identities ofpopular alt-right figures so they cannot hide their views behind pseudonyms. The Nebraska activists provided an example of theis tactic last December when they exposed the identity of Cooper Ward, a University of Nebraska student who was outed as the co-host of a popular neo-Nazi podcast. He quit the program after being identified and has not returned.

Building a fanbase as an overt racist has become much easier in the eyes of some antifa thanks in part to the mainstream media, several antifa activists told Salon.

There is nothing objective about writing [an] article about alt-right neo-nazis without including perspectives of their ideological opposites, argued the Nebraska activists. We have noticed a marked lack of Antifa views in the mainstream media; we are denied a voice while they are elevated and made to seem mainstream.

That alleged refusal to allow the antifa voice to be heard within mainstream journalism pieces about the alt-right is indicative of a systemic bias on the part of the press, Its Going Down wrote:

The world the Alt-Right wants is not that much different from the one we live in now, just one where the class, gender, and racial divisions are more crystallized.

Anarchists, who fight for a world where power is horizontally organized and political power is taken out of the hands of a centralized State and decentralized into human communities, where people dont work for wages but instead human labor is put towards needs and job, and where industrial production is destroyed in favor of sustainability is such a radical vision, and one that truly seeks to liberate all poor and working-people from the sinking Titanic that we now currently inhabit, most journalists dont want to touch it.

Antifa activists also take issue with liberals who think that letting people with racist or anti-Semitic views state them publicly somehow serves as a method of relieving societal pressures. Instead, as an anonymous essayist on the anarchist website CrimeThinc expressed it, such expressions merely increase the reach and influence of the far right:

Fascists are only attempting to express their views peacefully in order to lay the groundwork for violent activity. Because fascists require a veneer of social legitimacy to be able to carry out their program, giving them a platform to speak opens the door to their being able to do physical harm to people. Public speech promoting ideologies of hate, whether or not you consider it violent on its own, always complements and correlates with violent actions. By affiliating themselves with movements and ideologies based on oppression and genocide, fascists show their intention to carry on these legacies of violence but only if they can develop a base of support.

The antifas brutal approach to politics has earned them no love from many liberal and leftist quarters. Even Occupy.com has featured a highly critical essay of the anonymous activists for being a a devolution in the philosophy of the left.

Radical and even violent action against the far-right probably does alienate some people, antifas are quick to admit, but it is also clear that direct street action also attracts support in ways that political speechifying or angry letters to the editor simply cannot. It is certainly true that more extreme supporters of the Black Lives Matter movement have made many right-wingers more antagonistic toward advocates of police reform. Its also true that both the mainstream Democratic and Republican hierarchies were completely ignoring the issue before fires began burning in Ferguson and Baltimore.

An anonymous essayist writing at IGD late last year explored this point in detail:

Liberals and much of the Left claim that confrontational tactics hurt us more than they help, from breaking windows to blocking streets. But in reality, each and every time this plays out in our communities, it is simply not the case. In fact, confrontation and disruption, in other words: physically fighting, brings more people in than sign holding or writing letters to the editor ever did. If anything, the wet blanket and attempts to control things by protest managers and liberals kills social movements, not combative actions which can be disruptive and at times violent.

We see this playing out in every social struggle and movement. The riots, blockades, and clashes with the police in Occupy Oakland grew the size and scale of the movement, and were themselves informed by the Oscar Grant riots and student occupations of several years prior.

The Ferguson Insurrection inspired youth across the country and led to other uprisings and rebellions which pulled in tens of thousands. Despite leaders within the Black Lives Matter movement attempting to endorse the Democrats, channel the movement back into politics, and reduce it to simple reforms, the movement continues to evolve and remain combative and disruptive over a period of several years.

Liberals and Leftists claim that confrontational actions scare away people from getting involved. But we find the opposite to be true. When people see a struggle is real; when there is skin in the game, something to fight for, and people are putting their bodies on the line, they often come out in droves. It is symbolic and legalistic protest which is pointless and doesnt work and ends up turning many people away.

By definition, the antifa arguments are both radical and controversial. The unanswered question is whether liberals, moderates and others who oppose the radical right can learn something from the antifas confrontational stance. Or will the violent tactics advocated by the antifas only worsen tensions in a divided society and beget more violence?

Read the original:
Anti-fascist radicals: Liberals don't realize the serious danger of the alt-right - Salon

Liberals launch new anti-Gorsuch campaign – Politico

Demonstrators gather outside of the U.S. Supreme Court after President Donald Trump announced Neil Gorsuch as his nominee to the Supreme Court on Jan. 31. | Getty

By Elana Schor

03/09/17 01:10 PM EST

Updated 03/09/17 04:10 PM EST

Liberal groups on Thursday launched a coordinated campaign to stoke Senate Democratic opposition to President Donald Trump's Supreme Court nominee, including planning a nationwide "day of action" on April 1.

The liberals' campaign, dubbed "The People's Defense," comes as activists prepare to make resistance to Judge Neil Gorsuch one of the top issues propelling millions of protesters into the streets since Inauguration Day. Senate Democrats have already responded to the growing energy of their base by mounting a historic blockade of Trump's most contentious Cabinet nominees, and liberal groups aim to add Gorsuch to the list.

Story Continued Below

"What we're experiencing is a genuine gathering of massive energy across the country to say, we cannot allow someone handpicked by Donald Trump" to win a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court, said NARAL Pro-Choice America President Ilyse Hogue, whose pro-abortion-rights group is leading the anti-Gorsuch effort.

Hogue told reporters that she's "hearing a lot of 'He's a really nice guy'" responses to Gorsuch, who has benefited from positive meetings with several Democratic senators whose votes would be necessary to mount a successful filibuster of his nomination.

"That's way too low a bar for a jurist of the highest court of the land," Hogue added. "What we need to be focused on is his record."

The liberal groups hinted at their forthcoming efforts in a Monday letter, first reported by POLITICO, which urged Senate Democrats to "do better" in opposing Gorsuch.

Advocates described the anti-Gorsuch effort in a news release as "a hub of action to leverage the unprecedented grassroots activism that has been created by the Trump Administrations agenda and direct it towards defeating the Gorsuch nomination."

Among other left-leaning groups involved in the new campaign are the Center for American Progress Action Fund, CREDO Action, MoveOn.org Civic Action, the Service Employees International Union, the American Federation of Teachers, End Citizens United, EveryVoice, and Stand Up America.

Also helping roll out the anti-Gorsuch campaign on Thursday was Indivisible, the group founded by former Democratic congressional aides that has fast become a key player in teeing up tense town-hall confrontations between Republican lawmakers and their constituents. In a note to its supporters, Indivisible advised them to prepare for "a national day of action" against the nomination on April 1.

Conservative groups have already kicked off a multi-million-dollar TV ad campaign promoting Gorsuch and dismissed Thursday's announcement.

"These liberal activist groups have been totally ineffective in tarring Judge Gorsuch, and this desperate Hail Mary of a campaign won't change a thing," said Jeremy Adler, spokesman for the conservative advocacy group America Rising Squared. "Every day that goes by sees new and strengthening support for Judge Gorsuch from across the political spectrum because his credentials and record as a fair, thoughtful jurist are unimpeachable."

Hogue said that liberal groups are not planning TV ads but are instead aiming to match right-leaning groups' financial muscle with grassroots firepower.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said Thursday that he expects the chamber to approve Gorsuch early next month, before senators leave Washington for a planned two-week recess on April 8.

Read the rest here:
Liberals launch new anti-Gorsuch campaign - Politico

Liberals discover the limits of Clinton’s likability – Washington Examiner

The Trump era has produced a surplus of provocative and irresistible questions about American life for the chattering class to clamor over. The latest came in the form of an NYU experiment that used actors to recreate presidential debates between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton exactly as they happened, with one adjustment - their genders were swapped.

The intention, as explained by one NYU professor, was to confirm the "liberal assumption" that "no one would have accepted Trump's behavior from a woman, and that the male Clinton would seem like the much stronger candidate."

For most of the presidential campaign, liberals, including Barack Obama, tossed around that assumption as though it were an unimpeachable fact. When the Left-leaning experimenters at NYU put it to the test, however, their results contradicted it completely.

According to NYU professor Joe Salvatore, "People across the board were surprised that their expectations about what they were going to experience were upended." A New York Times reporter explained, "Most of the people there had watched the debates assuming that Ms. Clinton couldn't lose. This time they watched trying to figure out how Mr. Trump could have won."

To many performance-goers, the female Trump was likable, while the male Clinton was not.

For spectators of American politics, these results provide much material for digestion. At first blush, disentangling reactions to the experiment feels almost overwhelmingly complicated. But does it have to be that way?

Maybe it's simple. When you analyze everything through the prism of identity politics, your vision is clouded.

Because of the dominant perception that Clinton was unlikable, liberal supporters saw her as a victim of persistent sexism. When they experienced a man using her same words and embodying her same mannerisms, they saw the unlikability. If you remove the lens of presumed sexism, you see what everyone else sees.

Similarly, the Left complained that Trump's masculinity allowed him to get away with bluster and pomposity. But the female Trump in NYU's experiment got away with that same behavior just fine.

Also from the Washington Examiner

Three years later, the 2014 bill is a proven failure when it comes to disciplining VA employees.

03/10/17 12:01 AM

Because liberals' standard package of presumptions about gender colored their perceptions of both candidates, they were left incapable of making accurate evaluations.

Truthfully, this experiment seems more like a lesson in how assumptions about gender impede our ability to understand reality, rather than inform it.

In an email to the Washington Examiner, American Enterprise Institute scholar Christina Hoff Sommers mused, "I'm not so sure this NYU play is a lesson about gender but about authenticity."

Sommers, an expert in gender and feminism who did not support Trump, assessed the results by explaining, "Mr. Trump whatever his failings spoke his mind. He was spontaneous, uncensored and funny. Tom Wolfe called him a 'lovable megalomaniac.' Ms. Clinton came off as scripted, focus-grouped, and supercilious."

"That's hard to love in either sex," Sommers concluded.

Also from the Washington Examiner

The Office of Government Ethics reached out within hours of statements by Trump and Conway.

03/09/17 11:37 PM

Emily Jashinsky is a commentary writer for the Washington Examiner.

Original post:
Liberals discover the limits of Clinton's likability - Washington Examiner

See no evil: Liberals refuse to see themselves as hypocrites – Washington Times


Washington Times
See no evil: Liberals refuse to see themselves as hypocrites
Washington Times
For too long, the liberal left has been hiding behind a guise of compassion and inclusivity. They claim to care about the forgotten man and pretend to have tolerance for people of all backgrounds, races, religions and political beliefs. Yet, time and ...
3 cops, pepper spray used in arrest of Sen. Tim Kaine's son near Trump rally at CapitolTwinCities.com-Pioneer Press
Sen. Tim Kaine's son among several arrested after protesters disrupt Trump rally in MinnesotaWashington Post

all 166 news articles »

Here is the original post:
See no evil: Liberals refuse to see themselves as hypocrites - Washington Times

The liberals who loved eugenics – Washington Post

The progressive mob that disrupted Charles Murrays appearance last week at Middlebury College was protesting a 1994 book read by few if any of the protesters. Some of them denounced eugenics, thereby demonstrating an interesting ignorance: Eugenics controlled breeding to improve the heritable traits of human beings was a progressive cause.

In The Bell Curve, Murray, a social scientist at the American Enterprise Institute, and his co-author, Harvard University psychologist Richard J. Herrnstein, found worrisome evidence that American society was becoming cognitively stratified, with an increasingly affluent cognitive elite and a deteriorating quality of life for people at the bottom end of the cognitive ability distribution. They examined the consensus that, controlling for socioeconomic status and possible IQ test bias, cognitive ability is somewhat heritable, the black/white differential had narrowed and millions of blacks have higher IQs than millions of whites. The authors were resolutely agnostic concerning the roles of genes and the social environment. They said that even if there developed unequivocal evidence that genetics are part of the story, there would be no reason to treat individuals differently or to permit government regulation of procreation.

[Why Middleburys violent response to Charles Murray reminded me of the Little Rock Nine]

Middleburys mob was probably as ignorant of this as of the following: Between 1875 and 1925, when eugenics had many advocates, not all advocates were progressives but advocates were disproportionately progressives because eugenics coincided with progressivisms premises and agenda.

Progressives rejected the Founders natural-rights doctrine and conception of freedom. Progressives said freedom is not the natural capacity of individuals whose rights preexist government. Rather, freedom is something achieved, at different rates and to different degrees, by different races. Racialism was then seeking scientific validation, and Darwinian science had given rise to social Darwinism belief in the ascendance of the fittest in the ranking of races. The progressive theologian Walter Rauschenbusch argued that with modern science we can intelligently mold and guide the evolution in which we take part.

Progressivisms concept of freedom as something merely latent, and not equally latent, in human beings dictated rethinking the purpose and scope of government. Princeton University scholar Thomas C. Leonard, in his 2016 book Illiberal Reformers: Race, Eugenics & American Economics in the Progressive Era, says progressives believed that scientific experts should be in societys saddle, determining the human hierarchy and appropriate social policies, including eugenics.

Economist Richard T. Ely, a founder of the American Economic Association and whose students at Johns Hopkins University included Woodrow Wilson, said God works through the state, which must be stern and not squeamish. Charles Van Hise, president of the University of Wisconsin, epicenter of intellectual progressivism, said: We know enough about eugenics so that if that knowledge were applied, the defective classes would disappear within a generation. Progress, said Ely, then at Wisconsin, depended on recognizing that there are certain human beings who are absolutely unfit, and should be prevented from a continuation of their kind. The mentally and physically disabled were deemed defectives.

In 1902, when Wilson became Princetons president, the final volume of his A History of the American People contrasted the sturdy stocks of the north of Europe with Southern and Eastern Europeans who had neither skill nor energy nor any initiative of quick intelligence. In 1907, Indiana became the first of more than 30 states to enact forcible sterilization laws. In 1911, now-Gov. Wilson signed New Jerseys, which applied to the hopelessly defective and criminal classes. In 1927, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Virginias law, with Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. writing in a letter that, in affirming the law requiring the sterilization of imbeciles, he was getting near to the first principle of real reform.

At the urging of Robert Yerkes, president of the American Psychological Association, during World War I the Army did intelligence testing of conscripts so that the nation could inventory its human stock as it does livestock. The Armys findings influenced Congresss postwar immigration restrictions and national quotas. Carl Brigham, a Princeton psychologist, said the Armys data demonstrated the intellectual superiority of our Nordic group over the Mediterranean, Alpine and Negro groups.

Progressives derided the Founders as unscientific for deriving natural rights from what progressives considered the fiction of a fixed human nature. But they asserted that races had fixed and importantly different natures calling for different social policies. Progressives resolved this contradiction when, like most Americans, they eschewed racialism the belief that the races are tidily distinct, each created independent of all others, each with fixed traits and capacities. Middleburys turbulent progressives should read Leonards book. After they have read Murrays.

Read more from George F. Wills archive or follow him on Facebook.

Continued here:
The liberals who loved eugenics - Washington Post