Mediaboss Marketing

CHARLESTON, S.C. At a campaign event the weekend before South Carolinas primary election, Tom Rice, a conservative congressman now on the wrong side of former President Donald J. Trump, offered a confession.

I made my next election a little bit harder than the ones in the past, he said on Friday, imploring his supporters a group he called reasonable, rational folks and good, solid mainstream Republicans to support him at the polls on Tuesday.

Two days before and some 100 miles south, Representative Nancy Mace, another Palmetto State Republican who drew the former presidents ire, recognized her position while knocking doors on a sweltering morning.

I accept everything. I take responsibility. I dont back down, she said, confident that voters in her Lowcountry district would be sympathetic. They know that hey, even if I disagree with her, at least shes going to tell me where she is, she added.

Ms. Mace and Mr. Rice are the former presidents two targets for revenge on Tuesday. After a pro-Trump mob stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, they were among those who blamed the president for the attack. Ms. Mace, just days into her first term, said that Mr. Trumps false rhetoric about the presidential election being stolen had stoked the riot and threatened her life. Mr. Rice, whose district borders Ms. Maces to the north, immediately condemned Mr. Trump and joined nine other Republicans (but not Ms. Mace) in later voting for his impeachment.

Now, in the face of primary challenges backed by the former president, the two have taken starkly different approaches to political survival. Ms. Mace has taken the teeth out of her criticisms of Mr. Trump, seeking instead to discuss her conservative voting record and libertarian streak in policy discussions. Mr. Rice, instead, has dug in, defending his impeachment vote and further excoriating Mr. Trump in the process.

Should they fend off their primary challengers on Tuesday, Ms. Mace and Mr. Rice will join a growing list of incumbents who have endured the wrath of the G.O.P.s Trump wing without ending their political careers. Yet their conflicting strategies a reflection of both their political instincts and the differing politics of their districts will offer a look at just how far a candidate can go in their defiance of Mr. Trump.

In the eyes of her supporters, Ms. Maces past comments are less concrete than a vote to impeach. She has aimed to improve her relationship with pro-Trump portions of the G.O.P., spending nearly every day of the past several weeks on the campaign trail to remind voters of her Republican bona fides, not her unfiltered criticism of Mr. Trump.

Everyone knows I was unhappy that day, she said of Jan. 6. The entire world knows. All my constituents know.

Her district, which stretches from the left-leaning corners of Charleston to Hilton Heads conservative country clubs, has an electorate that includes far-right Republicans and liberal Democrats. Ms. Mace has marketed herself not only as a conservative candidate but also one who can defend the politically diverse district against a Democratic rival in November.

It is and always will be a swing district, she said. Im a conservative, but I also understand I dont represent only conservatives.

That is not a positive message for all in the Lowcountry, however.

Ted Huffman, owner of Bluffton BBQ, a restaurant nestled in the heart of Blufftons touristy town center, said he was supporting Katie Arrington, the Trump-backed former state representative taking on Ms. Mace. What counted against Ms. Mace was not her feud with Mr. Trump but her relative absence in the restaurants part of the district, Mr. Huffman said.

Katie Arrington, shes been here, Mr. Huffman said, recalling the few times Ms. Arrington visited Bluffton BBQ. Ive never seen Nancy Mace.

During a Summerville event with Nikki Haley, the former South Carolina governor, Ms. Mace gave a stump speech that ran down a list of right-wing talking points: high inflation driven by President Bidens economic agenda, an influx of immigrants at the Southern border, support for military veterans. She did not mention Mr. Trump.

Ms. Mace predicts a decisive primary win against Ms. Arrington, who has placed her Trump endorsement at the center of her campaign message. A victory in the face of that, Ms. Mace said, would prove the weakness of any endorsement.

Typically I dont put too much weight into endorsements because they dont matter, she said. Its really the candidate. Its the person people are voting for thats what matters.

Speaking from her front porch in Moncks Corner, S.C., Deidre Stechmeyer, a 42-year-old stay-at-home mother, said she was not closely following Ms. Maces race. But when asked about the congresswomans comments condemning the Jan. 6 riot, she shifted.

Thats something that I agree with her on, she said, adding that she supported Ms. Maces decision to certify the Electoral College vote a move that some in the G.O.P. have pointed to as a definitive betrayal of Mr. Trump. There was just so much conflict and uncertainty. I feel like it shouldve been certified.

Mr. Rices impeachment vote, on the other hand, presents a more identifiable turnabout.

Its part of the reason Ms. Mace has a comfortable lead in her race, according to recent polls, while Mr. Rice faces far more primary challengers and is most likely headed to a runoff with a Trump-endorsed state representative, Russell Fry, after Tuesday.

Mr. Frys campaign has centered Mr. Rices impeachment vote in its message, turning the vote into a referendum on Mr. Rices five terms in Congress.

Its about more than Donald Trump. Its about an incumbent congressman losing the trust of a very conservative district, said Matt Moore, former chairman of the South Carolina Republican Party and an adviser to Mr. Frys campaign.

Still, Mr. Rice is betting on his hyper-conservative economic record and once-unapologetic support of the former president to win him a sixth term in one of South Carolinas most pro-Trump congressional districts.

In an interview, Mr. Rice noted the Republican Partys shift toward pushing social issues over policy something he said had been driven in part by the former presidents wing of the party, which helped redefine it.

Why are these midterms so important? This years races could tip the balance of power in Congress to Republicans, hobbling President Bidens agenda for the second half of his term. They will also test former President Donald J. Trumps role as a G.O.P. kingmaker. Heres what to know:

What are the midterm elections? Midterms take place two years after a presidential election, at the midpoint of a presidential term hence the name. This year, a lot of seats are up for grabs, including all 435 House seats, 35 of the 100 Senate seats and 36 of 50 governorships.

What do the midterms mean for Biden? With slim majorities in Congress, Democrats have struggled to pass Mr. Bidens agenda. Republican control of the House or Senate would make the presidents legislative goals a near-impossibility.

What are the races to watch? Only a handful of seats will determine if Democrats maintain control of the House over Republicans, and a single state could shift power in the 50-50 Senate. Here are 10 races to watch in the Houseand Senate, as well as several key governors contests.

When are the key races taking place? The primary gauntletis already underway. Closely watched racesin Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Georgia wereheld in May, with more taking place through the summer. Primaries run until September before the general election on Nov. 8.

Go deeper. What is redistrictingand how does it affect the midterm elections? How does polling work? How do you register to vote? Weve got more answers to your pressing midterm questions here.

He also laid out what the Republican Party should stand for: less taxes, less government, more freedom, individual responsibility, the American Dream, he said. If were not for that, then, gosh, I dont know what the Republican Partys about.

The impeachment vote has also won him favor with some voters. Rick Giles, a Rice supporter in Conway, S.C., said he admired Mr. Rice for his vote.

He stood up to Trump when a lot of people didnt, Mr. Giles said. He stood on his values. He didnt go with the party line. I like that.

Mr. Rices district, in South Carolinas northeast corner along the North Carolina border, is one of the states most conservative, favoring Republicans by nearly 30 points. And before the impeachment vote, Mr. Rice was one of Mr. Trumps most staunch supporters, with a voting record that matched Mr. Trumps stance more than 90 percent of the time.

Its not about my voting record. Its not about my support of Trump. Its not about my ideology. Its not because this other guys any good, Mr. Rice said. Theres only one reason why hes doing this. And its just for revenge.

Mr. Trump has had less success in the states at the root of his primary challenger push. In Georgia, two of his most prominent perceived enemies, Gov. Brian Kemp and Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, handily won their primaries against challengers backed by the former president. The two House races where he did not endorse incumbents have gone to a runoff.

Mark Sanford, a former congressman who was bested by Ms. Arrington in 2018 after Mr. Trump backed her primary challenge, predicted that Ms. Mace would prevail.

I think shell be fine, he said, pointing to the states increasing number of transplants from northern states who tend to favor establishment candidates. That bodes well for Nancy, it doesnt bode well for Katie.

Still, he said, Tuesdays outcome is unlikely to change the former presidents approach to politics.

Its binary with Trump, Mr. Sanford said. Youre not halfway in, halfway out youre either in or out.

Read more:
Two Targets of Trumps Ire Take Different Paths in South Carolina - The New York Times

Last autumn, Boris Johnson brought the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities into being. Naming a ministry after a catchphrase seems to suit our age of rhetoric as policy. How long before we see a Department for Getting on Your Bike, or a Department for Unleashing the British Entrepreneurial Spirit?

The levelling up initiative was born out of the Conservatives 2019 election victory, in which many former Labour constituencies in the north and Midlands the so called red wall changed sides. The thinking was that these acquisitions, the fruits of the war over Brexit, could not be kept once Brexit was done unless their needs were addressed. The idea of levelling up finding policies to reverse regional gaps in income, health, education and jobs was part of a wider narrative of a realignment, moving left on economics, right on questions of social policy. It was a way to consolidate the coalition brought together by Brexit so that it would have a life beyond Brexit itself.

The problem is, levelling up is running into difficulties and looks as if it is getting nowhere. For a start, the government has been distracted by both Partygate and the Russian invasion of Ukraine. While these distractions may be temporary, other obstacles will remain. The small-state, libertarian faction of the Tory party, which wants low taxes and a government that stays out of the economy, is no fan. Neither are those in the blue wall: MPs from traditional Tory constituencies that dont want to lose funding to more deprived areas. Internal opposition aside, the pressure to keep taxes as low as possible, and the other calls on the government purse, greatly limit the cash available to make levelling up a reality.

But if the policy fails, we should not mourn its passing. Why? Its not likely to work, and there are initiatives more deserving of money that probably will.

Its hard to diagnose the dysfunctions that create regional disparities. They can be rooted in the people of a particular place, or caused by an accident of history. There may be as many causes as there are people or firms in a particular place. Accidents of history also play a role. Things like fancy amenities or infrastructure may well be part of the reason for a towns success, or they could be the fruits of it (or both). This difficulty in diagnosing root causes is part of the reason why regional inequality is so entrenched. Its also why income gaps between nations across the world are so hard to close.

If you dont know with any certainty why one place is succeeding and another isnt, then you are likely to waste money by building bridges or transport links that will be underused, or producing housing or industrial estates that are unwanted.

In my view, there is no ethical defence of the disparities in incomes and life chances that market forces help to generate. In an ideal world, they would not exist. But the pure socialist systems that try to prevent them have such bad side effects corroding incentives and personal liberties, and being vulnerable to exploitation by powerful members of the party hierarchy that we have no choice but to tolerate a certain level of disparity. What applies to people also applies to towns, cities and regions. Part of the problem is that people are drawn to a place to do business because of who else is going to be there; yet who else is going to be there is determined by what they think others will do, creating a chicken and egg situation. Governments can help convince people that a place is viable by providing good attractions, amenities, or a university or a transport node. But a citys viability can unravel quickly and unpredictably, as seen in Detroit, which, from a high of about 1.85 million people in 1950, lost almost two-thirds of its population.

Levelling-up enthusiasts see regional devolution as a way to help crack these problems of diagnosis and prescription. But devolution carries it own risks. Devolving tax and spending limits the possibility of redistribution from richer areas to poorer ones; it unravels the fiscal union, setting the scene for the kinds of difficulties the euro area experienced after the financial crash. In addition, local politics is more vulnerable to corruption. Local politicians wont have national interests at heart, so may engage in unproductive fights simply to move economic activity from one place to another.

None of this is to say that every levelling up initiative is a bad idea. But right now, there are a lot of other things governments could do that would be better value for money. We need to tackle the cost of living crisis by moving money from those who can pay to those who are experiencing hardship. We have got to address the Covid legacy of long NHS waiting lists, and put the service on a more resilient footing to deal with future pandemics and other challenges. Government has to deal with the crisis in social care. The gap between real funding per head in state and private schools is widening. And we have to wean ourselves off fossil fuels, something made all the more urgent by the imperative of weaning ourselves off Russian fossil fuels. There is other post-Covid work to do in broadening access to high-speed internet and making food and other distribution networks more resilient.

This is a long list of policies that are expensive but essential, and will stretch government capacity and the electorates tolerance of taxation to its limits. Many of them, if they work, will also help with the broad set of objectives put in the bucket marked levelling up. For instance, better funding for the NHS and social care will help close one of the worst aspects of inequality, the gap in life expectancy between rich and poor.

Even at the best of times, we need to recognise the limits of a generous and muscular state. Offering everyone the chance to do the job of their choice at the same wage wherever they live is well beyond those limits. Providing decent education, health and social care and green energy is not and we should focus on those things instead.

Tony Yates is a former professor of economics and head of monetary policy strategy at the Bank of England.

Inequality, what can be done? by Anthony B Atkinson (Harvard, 16.95)

Brexitland: Identity, Diversity and the Reshaping of British Politics by Rob Ford and Maria Sobolewska (Cambridge, 15.99)

Poor Economics: A Radical Rethinking of the Way to Fight Global Poverty by Abhijit Banerjee and Esther Duflo (Penguin, 9.99)

Read the original post:
The big idea: why we shouldnt be levelling up - The Guardian

WAUSAU Open state Senate seats will dominate local elections in the Marathon County area this fall.

Decisions by Republican state Senate incumbents Kathy Bernierand Jerry Petrowskito not seek reelection will set up primary elections on Aug. 9.

Three Republicans will compete to replace Bernier in the 23rd Senate District. The winner of the primary will also win the seat in November because no Democrat filed to run for the seat.

Meanwhile, the winner of a three-way Republican primary to replacePetrowski in the 29th Senate District will face Democrat Robert Look.

Here are the races for the Marathon County area.An (*) indicates a race that will require a primary; (i) denotes the incumbent.

Incumbent Kathy Bernier, R-Chippewa Falls, is not seeking reelection.

Republicans*: Brian Westrate, Fall Creek; Sandra Scholz, Chippewa Falls; Jesse James, Altoona

Challengers: None

Incumbent Jerry Petrowski, R-Stettin, is not seeking reelection.

Republicans*: Brent Jacobson, Mosinee; Jon Kaiser, Ladysmith; Cory Tomczyk, Mosinee

Democratic: Robert Look, Rothschild

Republican: Calvin Callahan (i), Tomahawk

Independent:Todd Frederick, Merrill

Republican: Donna M. Rozar (i), Marshfield

Democratic:Lisa Boero, Marshfield

Republican: Pat Snyder (i), Schofield

Democratic: Kristin Conway, Schofield

Republican: John Spiros (i), Marshfield

Challengers: None

Republicans: James W. Edming (i), Glen Flora; Michael Bub, Medford

Democratic:Elizabeth Riley, Hayward

Libertarian: Wade A. Mueller, Athens, still pending state approval

Independent, Libertarian: Tom Rasmussen, Medford, still pending state approval

Republicans*: Kelly Schremp (i), Benjamin Seidlerand Pam Van Ooyen.

Incumbent Sheriff Scott Parks is not seeking reelection. Parks endorsed his chief deputy, Chad Billeb, in announcing his decision last summer.

Republican: Chad Billeb

Challengers: None

MORE NEWS: New plans for the Wausau Center mall site include apartments, restaurants and small retail

MORE NEWS: Wausau Streetwise: A Taste of Manila sells West Side Tasty Treat building, Cobblestone Hotel breaks ground in Mosinee

Contact reporter Alan Hovorka at 715-345-2252 or ahovorka@gannett.com.Follow him on Twitter at @ajhovorka.

More here:
Wausau election roundup: 23rd and 29th state Senate seats up for grabs this fall - Wausau Daily Herald

Gary Gerstles newThe Rise and Fall of the Neoliberal Order: America and the World in the Free Market Eraedifyingly recounts the ascent and dominance in American thought and public policy of neoliberalism, which downgraded the role of government and allowed a greater role for private market forces for almost 50 years before having to reckon with a newly ascendant populism on the right and progressivism on the left. Philanthropy plays a part in his account, or at least part of his account.

Gerstle is the Paul Mellon Professor of American History at the University of Cambridge and a fellow of Sidney Sussex College. Grossly oversimplifying, his book generally and well-describes Presidents Ronald Reagan as laying the post-New Deal and -Great Society neoliberal orders foundations and Bill Clinton as consolidating its gains.

Conservative grantmaking foundations helped along the way, by Gerstles telling. While he doesnt promise anything more, almost all of his specific examples have also been noted byothersin the past, prominently including researchers and activists who wanted liberal and progressive grantmakers to mimic the conservatives successful giving strategies and tactics.

Powell, Olin, Coors, and the Kochs

As have othersand, arguably,similarlytoo tidily and convenientlyGerstle also specifically relies on thePowell memofor his narrative. Written in 1971 by soon-to-be-Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell, the memo advised the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to undertake activities to better and more staunchly defend capitalism and the free-enterprise system against the then-increasing number and severity of attacks on it.

[T]he public release of the Powell memo was a gift to the neoliberal movement, according to Gerstle inThe Rise and Fall of the Neoliberal Order, for it served as a rallying point the for many businesspeople, intellectuals, and would-be policymakers who wanted to restore free enterprise and free markets to the center of American life.

Gerstle quotes successful businessman and John M. Olin Foundation founder John M. Olin as writing The Powell memorandum gives reason for a well organized effort to reestablish the validity and importance of the American free enterprise system, and the book says brewer Joseph Coors, Jr., was also inspired by the Powell memo in helping finance creation in 1973 of The Heritage Foundationwhich quickly established a reputation as the most politically aggressive think tank in the neoliberal firmament.

Gerstle continues by citing the wealthy Koch familys funding, beginning in 1974, of what became the Cato Institute, which [n]o think tank would outdo in terms of its hostility to the New Deal order and the fierceness of its belief in libertarian principles. Created in 1977, moreover, the Manhattan Institute supported George GildersWealth and Poverty, which became one of the bibles of the Reagan administration and the emerging neoliberal order on its publication in 1981.

Slow to Recognize

Liberals and leftists were slow to recognize the size and coordinated nature of this counter-offensive, Gerstle writes,

in part because it was taking shape outside the districts in which they lived and worked. These districts included universities (and the college towns surrounding them), Georgetown salons, labor unions, institutions such as Brookings and the Ford and Carnegie foundations, newspapers such as theNew York Timesand the three television networksABC, CBS, and NBCthat dominated national broadcast media. They constituted a kind of New Deal order establishment, now pushed to the left by radical student movements.

Gerstle goes on to note the Powell memos call to arms was to build what the journalist Sydney Blumenthal long identified as a counter establishment of conservative and market-oriented think tanks, newspapers, other forms of media, and vehicles of political mobilization.

Olin, Coors, the Kochs, and others viewed their businesses as having been built with family blood, sweat, and tears, according toThe Rise and Fall of the Neoliberal Order. They interpreted their economic success as a reflection of their gumption, talent, and forbearance, on the one hand, and of Americas commitment to free enterprise, on the other. The notion that great reward awaited those taking great risk was central to their understanding of the American dream.

These courageous risk-takers, Gerstle correctly writes, saw unfair regulation-enforcing

government officials as the leading edge of communist tyranny or, in Lewis Powells words, of state socialism.

The anger among these proprietary capitalists at government and the New Deal order gave the Reagan revolution its radical edge. Its members never ceased being inspired by Barry Goldwaters declaration in his 1964 acceptance speech that extremism in defense of liberty is no vice. No expense was to be spared in mounting this defense, which is why the Kochs, the Coorses, and their ilk were investing large sums from their personal fortunes into foundations, PACs, and candidates that, in their eyes, might save their enterprises and the American system of freedom that had made them possible.

Adoption, and Elitism

Gerstle later, also correctly, observes: That a new generation of Democrats had begun adopting neoliberal principles as their own for and in the post-Reagan period was a sure sign of this ideologys ascent. In a first contrastto that which the pre- and actual Reagan-era conservative and libertarian givers didhowever, the book does not really devote as much space to that which liberal givers, including the large establishment philanthropic ones, did to promote the rise of neoliberalism leading up to and during either the Clinton or Obama eras.

Gerstle does passingly hint at the nature and degree of some of this support when referencing harsh critiques of Hillary Clinton by fellow 2016 Democratic presidential-primary candidate Bernie Sanders. Clinton

did not understand why the internationalist credentials she had acquired as a hard-working and world-traveling secretary of state were now seen by many as a liability. She did not seem to comprehend the conflict between the close relations she had developed with world leaders, on the one hand, and the donations these leaders were making to her familys Clinton Foundation, on the other.

It was hard for her to understand how thoroughly she had come to be seen as encased in the world of a privileged and globe-trotting elite.

Beginning in 2017, seeking a strengthened progressivism, Gerstle goes on, some left-leaning donors with ample reserves began to encourage and coordinate the kind of fundraising efforts that every movement in America aspiring to become a political order requires.

Slow to Recognize (II)

In a second contrasthere, to that which GerstlesThe Rise and Fall of Neoliberalismdevotes to conservative givers promoting the rise of government-skeptical, market-minded neoliberalismhe does not devote much space to what they may have done to contribute to its fall. Such would have been difficult, of course; theres actually not much to document or summarize.

Conservative philanthropyflat-footedlymissed that which gave rise to the political, and cultural, ascendance of Donald Trump and Trumpism, whatever that might now end up meaning and becoming. It wasnt doing, or even recognizing, anything different. Like the liberals and progressives of yesteryear, it sure seems to have been slow to recognize a serious counter-offensive. Unlike in the 1960s and 70s, it didnt seem, pre-2016, to be too forward-looking; in fact, it sure seems to have become too insular, too removed, too elite in and of itself.

For the most part, in further fact, its still trying to catch up, and either engage or just somehow deal with the creation and growth of whats an aggressive new conservative counter-establishment of sorts. For future researchers and activists, there must be a conceptual, infrastructure-shaping equivalent to the Powell memo out there, if even only to again overhype. One senses both conservative counter-establishments could currently use a good one.

This articleoriginally appeared in theGiving Reviewon May 19, 2022.

Read more:
Philanthropy in The Rise and Fall of the Neoliberal Order - Capital Research Center

Brought to you by:

Summer is heeeeeeere! Oh wait, you're an adult and have kids.Now you have to figure out what to do with them before you are driven to the edge of madness. What a drag!

Don't panic. We've got some great summer activity ideas for you andWhoa, you have a libertarian kid?That's even worse!

Try these libertarian themed summer activities:

1) Go to the beach: If you bring a shovel and a metal detector you can minefor bitcoin. Is that how it works? We're still not sure.

2) Start a podcast: Oh, your libertarian child already has a podcast, doesn't he? Never mind.

3) Grow a garden: Yes, for Christmas trees. Definitely nothing else.

4) Set up a lemonade stand: Make sure it doesn't take fiat currency. Precious metals are acceptable.

5) Go to the Grand Canyon: Tell everyone their view is subsidized by taxes on working-class Americans.

6) Buy a 3D Printer: For lightsaber replicas, figurines, and ghost guns.

7) Tour Europe: Just be careful not to form any foreign alliances.

8) Light summer reading: Sowell, Hayek, and Tuttle Twinswill get you started.

9) Repair the road you paved yourself: Try to avoid using public roads when you go buy the material.

10) Panning for gold: Then you can take all the gold you find and invest it in gold!

11) Storm the Federal Reserve: Just use the plan from Die Hard With a Vengeance. It worked almost perfectly!

12) Tell people to get off your land: A wholesome way to bond with your child.

NOT SATIRE: You know what wed really like to do this summer?

Fill a public school library with Tuttle Twins books, so when a LibsOfTikTok teacher shows up ready to indoctrinate her students, she unfortunately finds a library full of books that teach kids about the ideas of liberty, free speech, free markets, individual responsibility, and American history.

Will you help us send Tuttle Twins books to a public school? It costs roughly $10 to distribute one book to a school. Can you help?

Click here to help us distribute more copies of the Tuttle Twins books to schools across the country, with your tax-deductible gift of $10, $50, $100, $500, or even more.

Thank you,Connor BoyackAuthor, Tuttle Twins

Read more from the original source:
Summer Activities To Enjoy With Your Libertarian Kid - The Babylon Bee