Mediaboss Marketing

If you needed evidence of the complete arrogance the B.C. government is capable of displaying on the issue of campaign financing, Advanced Education Minister Andrew Wilkinson was happy to provide it this week.

The Liberals recent disclosure that it had raised $12.5-million in 2016, most of it on the backs of wealthy corporations and the richest people in the province, has fanned the flames once again around the issue of reforming an area of our electoral system that has become embarrassingly out of sync with the rest of the country.

While corporate and union donations, as well as cash-for-access dinners have been outlawed in most of Canada, here they continue to be embraced by the governing party. The degree to which B.C. remains a morally corrupt outlier on this front was recently the subject of a piece in The New York Times, no less.

Read more: B.C. NDP renews call for ban on corporate, union donations

Read more: B.C. Liberals post donations online; party raised $12.5-million in 2016

Read more: Controversial fundraiser leaves B.C. NDP as guilty as the Liberals

If you imagined this bit of unpleasant publicity might have at least made the B.C. Liberals twinge with regret, pause for even a slight second about their insistence on allowing big-city elites to have an outsized role in determining elections in the province, you would have imagined wrong.

We dont have limits in British Columbia and thats how it has been working now for decades, Mr. Wilkinson said proudly this week, when he was pushed to answer questions on the topic. Its a system that works and we believe that transparency is the issue.

In other words people: shut up.

Premier Christy Clark, who has remained uncharacteristically silent amid the latest uproar around the issue, has also been fond of saying that the system as is works. Who could deny that? But works for whom? It most certainly works for the pro-business Liberals, who have benefited enormously from it. They wont change because they believe, perhaps rightly, that this issue is not a priority for the vast swath of the public.

The Liberals dont care what is ethically right. That is the last thing they are concerned about. They care about winning, keeping power, at any cost. Period. Only when they judge that their grasp on the levers of government are threatened do they move on an issue.

Consequently, after months and months of doing nothing about the runaway housing market for fear of upsetting their donor friends in the development and real estate industries, the government had to move because of the public unrest the issue was creating. That clamour was viewed to be a risk to the partys electoral chances.

So, Ms. Clark reluctantly introduced a 15-per-cent foreign buyers tax. A bold move to get out in front of a serious issue it was not. A desperate decision to satisfy the braying mob is more like it.

But back to electoral reform.

One cant be but amused by the Liberals signature defence of the system as it exists: that they are transparent about how much money they bring in and who donates. What a ridiculous and pathetic justification that is.

First, the fact that the party is disclosing donations ahead of when Elections BC would make them public means nothing. The information is going to come out eventually anyway. So what if you make it public a few months ahead of that time. What does that change? Absolutely nothing.

The same applies to the real time reporting of donations, the Liberals have introduced with so much fanfare. So what if you disclose which millionaires have donated to your party in a 10-day period? Id be more interested in the party revealing who was at the latest $10,000-a-plate dinner the Premier sat down at in the dining room of a party supporter.

That is called cash for access, access everyday members of the public dont enjoy, could never enjoy. And that should never be the case. Select citizens should never enjoy more entre with those who run the province based on the size of their bank account, and the influence they wield.

But that is whats happening in B.C. The provincial Liberals cater to the ruling class. It is a symbiotic relationship. Here is some money to help ensure you guys stay in power, in return these millionaire donors get the government, and the policies that help ensure they continue to pad their massive bank accounts.

There is nothing about this of which the B.C. Liberals should be proud. It is a system that enriches the elites and perpetuates a power structure that ignores the average Joe and Jane.

Follow Gary Mason on Twitter: @garymasonglobe

Read the rest here:
BC Liberals display arrogance on the issue of campaign financing - The Globe and Mail

Ottawa Sun

Liberals will tax campground out of business Ottawa Sun However, now the Liberal government is unfairly targeting campground owners and other small operations by saying that they're too small to be a small business. Campground owners, they say, don't have enough employees to qualify. They are doing this ... and more »

View post:
Liberals will tax campground out of business - Ottawa Sun

So much for unity not that it was ever a probability after the unprecedented election of Donald Trump.

Trump did his share to undermine it, of course. Before he took office this week, he managed to get into a pointless battle with U.S. Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., the civil rights icon; alarm European allies; and irritate adversaries like China.

It was enough to give dozens of Democrats an excuse, as if they needed one, to refuse to attend the inaugural. But Trump is not the only reason for the toxic divisions at the launch of his presidency.

Why Hillary Clinton lost the presidential election is still being hotly debated. But to those of us who arent in the Washington bubble or members of the media or government elite, it continues to become clearer with every week that passes.

Let us count the ways.

Start with the absurd claim that liberals are big supporters of diversity and thats why they have to attack conservative Trump voters. No, theyre not. Liberals are enemies of diversity.

Sure, they practically demand quotas on things like gender, gender identity, race, sexual preference and ethnic background. But that kind of surface diversity is the only kind they will tolerate. Alleged liberals or progressives (their preferred term) are both contemptuous and hostile to a diversity of thought or belief.

Before the election, Clinton famously called half of Trump supporters a basket of deplorables. Not the best line for somebody who claimed she was going to campaign for every vote.

But she was only reflecting how her supporters feel, that those who dont pledge allegiance to the Democratic agenda are essentially knuckle-draggers.

The litany of insults became so common that it became a badge of honor for Clinton opponents. They turned it into an acronym: SIXHIRB - sexist, intolerant, xenophobic, homophobic, Islamophobic, racist and bigoted.

As Clinton and President Obama said a number of times, those who disagree with them are not who we are as Americans.

Got that? You dont even belong in America. No wonder the heartland was willing to vote for anybody but Hillary.

Then there is arrogance. Obama campaigned - and got wall-to-wall media coverage - for Hillary on the theme that I will not be on the ballot, but everything weve done is going to be on the ballot.

Then, after Trump won, he said, I believe that we have better ideas. But I also believe that good ideas dont matter if people dont hear them.

Didnt hear them? When they were on the news every night? The reality is that, in his view, its impossible for anyone with a brain to disagree with him if they listen to him.

I witnessed that mindset multiple times at the local government level. People would come before a city council seeking something a policy change, rejection of a proposed development and if they didnt get their way they would insist that the council members didnt listen to us.

In Obamaworld and Clintonworld, the thinking is the same. They dont believe it is possible to hear what they are saying, consider it, then reject it.

Perhaps it is Obama, Clinton and their supporters who are not listening.

Progressives view cultural conservatives not as people with valid political opinions but as an unenlightened, exotic alien species who need to be told how to vote or not allowed to vote.

That arrogance trickles down to social media. Liberals forever talk about how divisive conservatives are, but more of them unfriend their Facebook friends who defend Trump than the other way around.

There is incivility. They complain that Trump is not civil, and most of the time theyre right. But then they are as ugly or worse than he is.

There is a saying, backed up by vast evidence, that conservatives think liberals are wrong. Liberals think conservatives are evil.

Slate columnist and CBS analyst Jamelle Boule wrote, there is no such thing as a good Trump voter. People voted for a racist who promised racist outcomes. They dont deserve your empathy.

Check out the video of the woman who threw a toddler-level tantrum when members of Wisconsins Electoral College delegation met to certify the results for Trump.

You sold out our country, the woman screamed. Every one of you, youre pathetic. You dont deserve to be in America. This is my America! This is MY America!

I hope those two, and thousands of others, remembered to pick up their Love Trumps Hate signs after expressing themselves with the kind of dignity and compassion they claim to be all about.

And then there is hypocrisy: Recall how Clinton supporters, confident that she would win, worried aloud that the loser would contest the results and undermine not just confidence in the system but democracy itself? They were right. It just wasnt Trump.

Film propagandist Michael Moore, cinemas most successful purveyor of fake news, offered to pay the $1,000 fine for any faithless Republican elector who would vote against the will of the majority in his or her state. Moore is worth an estimated $50 million.

Imagine the reverse that Clinton lost the popular vote but won on electoral votes, and a conservative multi-millionaire offered to cover the fines of any electors who voted against her.

Remember how ferocious they were about how the Supreme Court needed a replacement for the late Justice Antonin Scalia? Now they say they are prepared to block any high court nominees for perhaps all of the Trump presidency.

There is more, but you get the idea. America is divided deeply divided. But it is not all the fault of Trump or his supporters.

Taylor Armerding is an independent columnist. Contact him at t.armerding@verizon.net.

Read more from the original source:
Liberals deserve blame for toxic divide - Weatherford Democrat

Too many liberals are gloomy these days. True, they have been knocked on their heels by the election of Donald Trump. Also true, since Gallup began such polls in 1992, those who self-identify as liberals have always constituted a smaller share of Americans than those calling themselves conservatives. True as well that they have now lost not only the House, Senate and White House but control of both houses of the legislature in 25 states and governorships in 33. So, rejected and dejected, they have reason to wonder if people no longer resonate with their message. They bemoan the fact that so many people "just don't understand." But they need to get over it - because it is holding them back and they have something important to say to a nation that needs to hear it.

Conservative ascendancy and liberal retreat are neither permanent nor permanently desirable paths for a vibrant America. The same was true in the 1960s, when liberals were celebrating their "permanent majority" and conservatives were fighting not just for the future of the Republican Party but the future of conservatism. This yin and yang of liberalism and conservatism is just another derivative of the federalist vs. anti-federalist argument that dominated the Federal Convention in 1787 and has continued under various labels and parties ever since. America needs this dualism. It is a vaccine against the dangerous extremes of democracy.

Liberals should celebrate their contributions not bemoan their fate - for Americans need to be reminded of what liberalism has given them. In the last half century, the liberal agenda expanded the franchise to eighteen-year-olds and abolished the poll tax. It began the removal of discrimination against blacks with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and the Fair Housing Act of 1968. The civil rights movement reminded America of its founding values, and began the slow, still-unfinished work of redressing the ravages of slavery and segregation. The women's movement began to address disparate treatment based on sex in jobs, pay and education, and the gay rights and marriage equality movements brought millions the civil equality and respect that is their American birthright. Americans with disabilities also gained the dignity and services they need as a result of liberalism, beginning with the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1975. Liberalism pushed to address the health care needs of the elderly and poor through Medicare and Medicaid and helped launch the environmental movement with the Clean Air Act of 1973, the creation of EPA in 1972, and the Endangered Species Act of 1973. These changes are now an accepted part of American life.

Not all liberal reforms have been successful or devoid of negative, unintended consequences, of course. Liberal misjudgments and over-reach (just like conservative ones) are by-products of their values, limited viewpoints, and electoral over-confidence. The balance that conservative values and ideas bring to the public square serves as a set of needed, contrasting views. Just as surely, liberalism will need to serve as a corrective for the excesses of the coming wave of conservative legislation and leadership.

So, the first message to liberals: stop acting as if you are unappreciated and misunderstood. The fact that people take your accomplishments for granted is a sign of success, not ingratitude. Second, communicate better what you have accomplished. Don't be reluctant to remind Americans of how their lives are better. It is not self-evident to them. Third, find an uplifting agenda for the twenty-first century. It will most likely differ from the past, even as the concern for those left out of society's benefits remains the same. The top-down, federal approach to solving social problems, which has characterized liberalism for so long, needs to be rethought. Liberals will still find some areas that require national solutions, including the need to preserve past gains, but they should focus more on state and local efforts. They must listen to and become active and relevant again in rural counties, small towns, and to many who feel abandoned by them.

Forth, liberals must organize better - and vote more. The Tea Party and the Occupy Movement both demanded change, but the former channeled that energy into the electoral process, first at the local and state level, and the latter largely dissipated as a political force. Aiming for turnout in national elections and mostly in urban and traditionally blue-state America is not enough.

Finally, liberals must not shrink from their dedication to social and environmental justice. That commitment is neither outdated nor naive. They are at their best when they are passionate and positive - America does not need a campaign of nastiness and negativity. Liberalism, as conservatism, is central to the American experiment. It provides emotional energy and ideas essential to hope and progress. Without that, America is a poorer place.

This Blogger's Books and Other Items from...

Reflections on America: Civic Virtue, Character, and the Pursuit of Happiness

by Terry Newell

To Serve with Honor: Doing the Right Thing in Government

by Terry Newell

Excerpt from:
Liberals and the Road Ahead - Huffington Post

By Wang Lixiong By Wang Lixiong January 19

Chinese like me pro-democracy liberals have been pushing for years to end the one-party dictatorship in our country. Most of us long regarded the U.S. political system as a model. Now, with the presidential election of Donald Trump, a man whose grasp of both democratic concepts and ethical norms is questionable, we have been forced to ask some hard new questions.

Our first reaction to the unsettling news was to shift our gaze to aspects of the U.S. system other than its presidential elections. We comforted ourselves by noting that the constitutional separation of powers can buffer the effects of an erratic president, that U.S. civil society remains strong and independent, and that another election will come along in four years.

But just as we were trying to adjust, Trump surprised us. He accepted a phone call from Tsai Ing-wen, the president of democratic Taiwan, and rejected Chinese government complaints about doing so. He brought in advisers who seem ready to take a harder line with Beijing. All of this suddenly made it seem that Trump might be good for Chinese democracy. Some of my fellow liberals have gone so far as to hope that Trumps flirtation with Russian President Vladimir Putin might signal that he is thinking about aligning with Russia in opposition to Chinas rulers rather as President Richard Nixon, four decades ago, sided with Mao Zedong against the Kremlin. These friends hope that such pressure might contribute to a collapse of Chinas authoritarian rule, just as the Soviet regime collapsed.

Personally, I am agnostic about Trumps private thoughts, and I feel that my liberal friends in China make a mistake when they invest their hopes in the unseen motives of a leader-in-waiting. In recent decades, we watched several times as new strongmen rose in Beijing; in each case we hoped they would loosen the system, and each time we were disappointed.

There is, moreover, the deeper question of what kind of democracy China might adopt, should that become possible. In the case of the Soviet Union, the transition from communist rule was made easier by a provision in the Soviet constitution that allowed constituent republics to secede. As long as the Soviets were in power, that provision was mere window dressing, but when the regime collapsed it provided the legitimacy under which Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakhstan and other former Soviet republics could go their separate ways. Chinas constitution, by contrast, insists on national unity, and within that unity the communist regime has annihilated every conceivable rival source of national organization. People fear that if the regime falls, society might collapse as well. The rulers are, in effect, saying, Keep us, or all hell will break loose. The claim has a certain plausibility, and the Communist Party uses it to take daily life hostage.

Chinese liberals who hope Trump might assist in bringing down communist rule in China do not want national dissolution or societal collapse. Such results would be disastrous not just for China but for the rest of the world. The crucial problem, therefore, is to find a way to rescue the hostage, as we say to keep society on its feet during a democratic transition.

Here, too, worries over the rise of Trump become relevant. If the United States, a model for democracy in the world, can elect a Trump, why wouldnt such a result be even more likely in China, where popular education in civic values and in the nations history is much weaker? Fifty years ago, Mao brought immeasurable disaster to China, but today, after years of Communist Party work to erase history and stimulate nationalism, Mao, in the popular Chinese imagination, is regarded as a hero. If Mao were to stand for election in China today, he would win in a landslide.

In the United States, Trump will have to work within a mature system of checks and balances and will have to step down in either four years or eight. A Chinese Trump, on the other hand, would almost certainly turn into a Chinese Putin. It would not be surprising to see the Han Chinese, who make up more than 90percent of the population, use democracy to suppress ethnic minorities, to launch an attack on Taiwan, or to bully Hong Kong. It is not beyond imagination that a Trump-style stimulation of popular passions in China could lead by democratic vote to support for launching a war on the United States.

The main question that the U.S. election leaves with Chinese liberals is how to build a system that can avoid a Chinese version of the Trump phenomenon.

Wang Lixiong is the author of the novel Yellow Peril.

Translated from Chinese by Perry Link.

Read the original here:
How China's liberals are feeling the Trump Effect - Washington Post