Mediaboss Marketing

Big-government conservatives gain from liberal media bias. Much of the U.S. media is accustomed to accepting left-leaning framing of economic policies and argumentsand it's impacting coverage of the conservative civil war over economic principles.

A significant portion of the rightfrom legislators like Sen. Josh Hawley (RMo.) to Fox News hosts like Tucker Carlson, traditionally right-leaning magazines like The American Conservative, and all sorts of rank-and-file Republicanshas started to sound very similar to the far left when it comes to private business and government regulation. "In the current environment, when you see somebody railing against how the system is rigged to benefit the rich and powerful at the expense of the working class, you have to double-check to see whether it's coming from somebody on the far left or the populist right," notes Philip Klein at National Review.

They're part of a "growing movement on the right challenging the longstanding commitment of conservatives to limited government and free enterprise"one that presents "a potentially fatal threat to the conservative movement as it has existed for decades as well as to the cause of limited government," adds Klein. (For more on this, see Stephanie Slade's "Is There a Future for Fusionism?")

And an American press already biased against libertarian views of markets and economic liberty seems more than happy to indulge the narrative of this being a more enlightened, populist, or politically compromising form of conservatism.

Take, for instance, this recent article on antitrust law in Washington Monthly. Republicans who want to join Democrats in expanding antitrust law and using it to punish large or politically disfavored companies are framed as folks wanting "to combat the monopolist corporations that have gained a precarious level of market power as the American economy has become more concentrated than at any other time since the Gilded Age." Those who want to see antitrust law stick to its current strategy of using consumer welfare as a lodestar are framed as "pro-monopoly."

The article is partially a profile of The Alliance on Antitrust, founded by Ashley Baker. The group aims "to align conservatives on the narrow and limited view of antitrust that Robert Bork popularized in the 1970s, called the 'consumer welfare standard,'" notes Washington Monthly. This standard says consumer interestsnot breaking up companies just for being big or inducing artificial competition just for the sake of competitionshould be the primary concern of antitrust law enforcement. It is not a "pro-monopoly" argument but an argument against excessive government intervention in private industry and for a conception of antitrust enforcement that puts protecting consumersnot any particular economic ideologyfirst.

"Under the consumer welfare standard, which has anchored U.S. antitrust law for over four decades, consumer harm is measured through tangible economic effects and empirical evidence," notes Tom Herbert, federal affairs manager at Americans for Tax Reform, in a recent opinion piece in The Hill. "Antitrust law under the consumer welfare standard allows business conduct that benefits Americans through lower prices, better quality products and greater access to goods and services."

Just a few years ago, the fact that Republicans would turn against such a standard in favor of a leftist vision of antitrust enforcement would be weird, to put it mildly. But antitrust law is now seen as another tool in fighting the culture war. "Large businesses [are] increasingly viewed as the enforcement arm of the cultural Left," notes Klein, and "the cancel culture and anti-PC debates have become more animating for a lot of conservatives than traditional social issues."

The funny/sad/terrifying thing about all of this is the notion that the right joining the left's pushes for more aggressive antitrust enforcement makes these fights "bipartisan." Both Republicans and Democrats may want to expand government control over internet companies and private business more generally, but they have drastically different ideas of what would happen when they do.

Sure, the Republican/conservative wing that advocates against free markets nods to making big corporations serve the people. And to Democrats/progressivesand media used to their framingthis means increasing taxes and regulations to make businesses cover things like Medicare for All, student loan forgiveness, "infrastructure" spending, and expanded health care benefits. But the Trumpists and others railing against "woke capitalism" and calling for less free markets aren't focused on these things at all; they're focused on making companies seen as too socially liberal pay for their perceived transgressions and side-taking in the culture wars. Their goal is enacting a socially conservative idea of the "common good" through economic sanctions against companies that won't play by their rules.

Neither the right nor the left will be happy when the other side has control of these regulations. But either way, businesses, consumers, and economic liberty will suffer.

A big religious freedom ruling is expected from the Supreme Court this week:

The case, known as Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, No. 19-123, is a fight over a city policy that bars discrimination based on sexual orientation. Citing the policy, Philadelphia dropped a contract with a Roman Catholic foster agency that said its beliefs didn't allow it to certify same-sex couples for adoption. The agency, Catholic Social Services, brought a lawsuit alleging that Philadelphia violated its First Amendment religious rights.

The court's opinion will likely be released today.

Tech industry associations NetChoice and the Computer & Communications Industry Association are suing over Florida's new law that bans some social media companies from banning politicians. The new lawwhich has a carveout for platforms owned by Disney and other operators of entertainment complexes or theme parkssays citizens can sue tech companies who "deplatform" any politician for any reason, and allows the Florida Elections Commission to fine companies that do so up to $250,000 per day.

"No one, not even someone who has paid a filing fee to run for office, has a First Amendment right to compel a private actor to carry speech on their private property," says the new suit, filed in the U.S. District for the Northern District of Florida.

"We cannot stand idly by as Florida's lawmakers push unconstitutional bills into law that bring us closer to state-run media and a state-run internet," Carl Szabo, vice president and general counsel of NetChoice, said in a statement. "The law is crony capitalism masquerading as consumer protection. Our lawsuit will stop an attempt by the state of Florida to undermine the First Amendment and force social media sites to carry offensive and harmful political messages."

Biden has promised that his tax crackdown won't mean more audits for people making under $400,000 per year and that it's only intended to catch ultra-rich tax scofflaws, not middle-class folks who make a little cash under the table. But at the same time, his new budget pledges to fund massive new spending initiatives with $717 billion in tax enforcement revenue over the next 10 years.

New COVID variants are proving more transmissible, threatening to make the pandemic even more catastrophic in parts of the world without widespread vaccination and upping the chances of a new mutation that will not be thwarted by current vaccines.

The World Health Organization is reclassifying location-based COVID-19 variants by greek letters, reports USA Today. "The United Kingdom variant, called by scientists B.1.1.7, will now be Alpha. B.1.351, the South Africa variant, will now be Beta and the B.1.617.2 variant discovered in India will now be known as Delta."

Will the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approve a promising new Alzheimer's drug? "By June 7, the FDA is expected to make one of its most important decisions in years: whether to approve the drug for mild cognitive impairment or early-stage dementia caused by Alzheimer's," notesThe Washington Post. "It would be the first treatment ever sold to slow the deterioration in brain function caused by the disease, not just to ease symptoms. And it would be the first new Alzheimer's treatment since 2003."

Will the Supreme Court consider a case on affirmative action in higher education?

A former state prison in New York may become "a bustling regional hub for growing and processing cannabis."

Illinois is trying to ban police from lying to child suspects during questioning.

A bill on its way to Nevada Gov. Steve Sisolak, a Democrat, "calls for making the state the first to hold a presidential primary in the 2024 election," reports The Hill. "If signed into law, it would switch Nevada's contest from a caucus to a primary and move the state up in the nation's election calendar, passing the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary for the first slot."

More than two dozen Cleveland police officers are being sued for allegedly violating the rights of antipolice brutality protesters.

Read more:
Liberal Media Coverage Is Boosting Conservative Nationalists - Reason

Phil Mickelson holds the Wanamaker Trophy after winning the PGA Championship golf tournament on the Ocean Course, Sunday, May 23, 2021, in Kiawah Island, S.C. (AP Photo/David J. Phillip)

I joined golf fans across the country who watched in amazement as Phil Mickelson won the PGA Championship in Kiawah Island, South Carolina, on Sunday. The Washington Post gave his victory perspective: since 1900, only five players aged fifty or older had held a fifty-four-hole lead in a professional golf major tournament. None went on to win. In fact, they combined to shoot twenty-six over par in their final rounds.

But the article adds, None of them were Phil Mickelson.

He turns fifty-one next month. With his victory he surpassed Julius Boros, who was forty-eight years old when he won the PGA Championship in 1968.

Mickelson was considered a two-hundred-to-one long shot when the tournament began on Thursday. At fifty, he had already begun playing on the PGA Tours senior circuit, winning his first two events. Few thought he would ever win again on the regular tour, much less a major title.

Phil Mickelson reminds us that age is more a number than a limit. It is important to learn from history and tradition while seeking new opportunities and experiences. The ability to do both, in fact, is part of the genius of the American experiment.

Frank S. Meyer (190972) was an American philosopher and political activist. In 1981, President Ronald Reagan recognized him for a vigorous new synthesis of traditional and libertarian thoughta synthesis that is today recognized by many as modern conservativism.

Meyers volume, In Defense of Freedom and Related Essays, includes a foreword by the historian William C. Dennis, who notes: Meyer argued that American conservatism is a blend of two strands of thought that for the most part remained in opposition to each other in Europe but in America were historical and natural allies. On the one hand there were the traditionalists, with their emphasis on value, virtue, and order; on the other hand, there were the libertarians, with their stress upon freedom and the innate importance of the individual.

Christians are tempted to embrace one to the exclusion of the other. In these days of unprecedented cultural challenges, we can defend traditional beliefs so fiercely that we refuse to seek new ways to express them creatively and persuasively. Or we can engage with new ideas and methods so fully that we fail to critique them by biblical truth.

God calls us to choose both.

His word invites us to sing to the Lord a new song, for he has done marvelous things! (Psalm 98:1). When we look at what God has done in the past, we are motivated to sing a new song for the future. The more we remember what our Father has done for us, the more we are encouraged to trust him for what he will do. And the more we are empowered to step into an unknown future by faith in his providence and providing grace.

A wise mentor once taught me the key to knowing Gods will: stay faithful to the last word you heard from God and open to the next.

What is the last word you heard from God?

Continued here:
Phil Mickelson becomes the oldest golfer to win a major title: Finding the vital balance between tradition and innovation - Denison Forum

Matthew McConaughey has been quietly making calls to political experts as he weighs up whether to run for Governor of Texas, according to a report.

The Oscar-winning actor, 51, revealed in an interview last month that he wasconsidering a run for Governor of Texas in 2022 but did not reveal for which party .

Reactions ranged from joyful enthusiasm of fans and those impressed by his recent Texas winterstorm reliefdrive and gun-control campaigns, to stark warnings tostay out of Texas politics and eye-rolls in established Republican and Democratic political circles in the Lone Star State.

Now, insiders have toldPoliticothat the Hollywood star has quietly started making calls to political experts to take the temperature before he decides whether to throw his hat in the ring and run against current Republican Governor Greg Abbott, 63, who has indicated that he will seek a third term.

The Independent has contacted Mr McConaugheys representative for comment.

Republican strategist, Karl Rove, said of Mr McConaugheys potential run: I find it improbable, but its not out of the question.

He added: The question is: Would he run as a Republican? A Democrat? Independent? And where is he on the political scale? He says he has a funny phrase about being a hardcore centrist, but what party would he run under?

Matthew Dowd, founder of Country Over Party and former chief strategist on the 2004 Bush-Cheney campaign, told Politico: I think theres an impression of, Do we really need another celebrity candidate in the midst of this?

But Brendan Steinhauser, an Austin-based GOP strategist, said: Im a little more surprised that people arent taking him more seriously, honestly. Celebrity in this country counts for a lot its not like some C-list actor no one likes. He has an appeal.

When Mr McConaughey first mooted a run earlier this year, many dismissed him as yet another inexperienced, Hollywood star interfering in politics and warned him not to look to the increasingly long list of celebrities-turned-politicians - former presidents Donald Trump andRonald Reagan; and former California governorArnold Schwarzenegger, as his role-models.

CNNpolitical analyst Jim Moore warned theTrue Detectivestar: You are not prepared. Be kind to your state and yourself. Stick with what you know.

But following a March Gallup poll that revealed a record-high 62 per cent of Americans feel that a third party option is needed, some have started eyeing the A-lister from Austin, who has refused to align as a Republican or Democrat, as a potential candidate.

On 10 March, The Libertarian Party of Texas, the state arm of the USs third most popular party, tweeted: Hey, @McConaughey, can we talk?

Matthew McConaughey speaks during "One World: Together At Home" presented by Global Citizen on April, 18, 2020

(Getty Images for Global Citizen)

Third, or minor, parties have historically performed poorly in American politics. This is largely attributed to first-past-the-post (FPTP), which favours a two-party system, creating less room for smaller parties who cannot gain any representation without an outright win.

Since 1990, just six (2 per cent) of governors out of 369 have been elected from minor parties. The most recent was Alaskas Bill Walker, a Republican turned Independent, who merged his campaign with Democratic nominee Byron Mallott in 2014. He dropped out of the 2018 race after low polling.

Only 53 Independent candidates for governor (14 per cent) have won at least 5 per cent of the vote.

An Independent, third-party candidate has never won a presidential election, not counting fresident George Washington who ran as an Independent but supported by the Federalist party.

Only once did a major party come third in a general election. In 1912, former president Theodore Roosevelt, represented by the Progressive Party, surpassed the Republicans to come second but was beaten by the Democrat Woodrow Wilson.

Not exactly a rounding endorsement for Mr McConaughey to run as a third-party nominee.

But Bekah Congdon, vice-chair of the Texas arm of the Libertarian Party, who tweeted at Mr McConaughey and is hoping to set up a meeting, said that following what some see as disappointing leadership by Republican Abbott, there may be an opportunity.

She told The Independent: Texas has for so long felt like a completely red state and we know its not. It has been about 26 years since a Democrat won a statewide electron here [Ann Richards 1991-1995] so its clear we have been stuck in one way of thinking for such a long time and that is holding us back as a state.

Founded in 1971 following the Watergate scandal and Vietnam War, the Libertarians focus on the rights of individuals over government intervention. They bill themselves as culturally liberal and fiscally conservative, supporting same-sex marriage but also gun-rights (which Ms Congdon admits might not align with the actors previous campaigns on gun-control).

In 2016 the party appeared to be on the rise. It counted two ex-governors as its presidential candidates and received 4.5million (3.3 per cent) votes in its most successful national election result ever.

But in 2020, following a polarising four years, its popularity faded. Libertarian vice presidential candidate, Spike Cohen, who promised free ponies and zombie power, and presidential nominee Jo Jorgensen won just 1.86million votes (1.18 per cent).

Ms Congdon said that Mr McConaughey appealed because of his independent spirit.

He isnt Republican or Democrat and does a lot of pointing out negatives and positives on both sides. Wanting to stop nasty political rhetoric and bridge that divide, she said.

It has been building over the years as he has become more vocal here. He is someone who is relatable, someone who people like and respect, and has an enviable platform.

Speaking toThe Longview News Journal in March, Mr McConaughey said he was serious about the right leadership role but was put off by bipartisan politics.

He said: For me, I need politics to define its purpose before I would choose it as a possible lane for me to pursue. I dont know that politics is my category where I would be the most useful I am looking for where I would be the most useful and it may be that I could be more useful as a free agent.

He then gave a trademark, rambling monologue in which he appeared to endorse a third option, outside of mainstream politics.

Ive said this analogy a few times before, but someone told me: There aint nothing in the middle but dead armadillos and yellow lines. I said, Well, Im walking right down the yellow lines, right in the middle of the highway right now. And the armadillos are free having a great time, because right now, both sides are so far to the right or the left, there arent even tires on the pavement.

Ms Congdon concluded: Its hard to tell if hes serious, but were here for it if he is.

Born in Uvalde, Texas in 1969, the actor hit the big time in 1993s coming-of-age film, Dazed and Confused, before starring in a slew of critically-panned romantic comedies in the 2000s that painted him as a talentless hunk known for giving winding, nonsensical interviews and his catchphrase: Alright, alright, alright.

In the 2010s the actor, who was once arrested for playing the bongos naked, launched a comeback which he called a McConaissance, appearing in multiple hits including The Wolf of Wall Street in 2013 and winning an Academy Award for his role in Dallas Buyers Club in 2014.

Over the last few years the actor, along with other Texas-born stars like Beyonc and Sandra Bullock, has become increasingly active in civic life in his home state. In the wake of disasters, he has made large financial donations and been boots-on-the-ground with his foundation, Just Keep Livin, that opened in 2008.

Matthew McConaughey makes plea for Hollywood to embrace Donald Trump

In 2017 he ruffled feathers when he called for the entertainment industry to get behind Donald Trump and be constructive during his presidency.

A year later he spoke at gun-control rally, March for Our Lives, where heurged law-abiding, gun owners to take one for the teamand give up some of their gun rights.

At the start of the Covid pandemic, the city of Austin broadcast the Matt Signal, using the well-liked actor in a series of PSA ads to persuade residents to stay at home and practise social distancing.

In fall 2020, signs of a potential political future for Mr McConaughey began to emerge. The star, who was appointed Minister for Culture and visiting film professor by his alma mater, the University of Texas, in 2019, started to tell multiple media outlets that he was looking for a leadership role where he can effect change.

When a freak snowstorm hit Texas in February and crippled the states power grid, leaving thousands of residents without heat and electricity, Mr McConaughey was one of several Texas-born celebrities to fundraise.

Soon afterwards, the magazine,Texas Monthly, published a piece titled Matthew McConaughey and Beyonc Did More for Texas Than Ted Cruz lambasting the disgraced Texas senator who was caught breaking lockdown rules to escape the storm with a trip to a Cancun, Mexico.

In April, after months of denying it, the actor casually told Houston-based podcast, The Balanced Voice, that running against Gov. Abbott in 2022, is a true consideration.

On social media his mooted run has received mixed reviews. Some are calling for Beto or bust, referring to Beto ORourke, the Democratic politician who lost the Texas Senate race to Mr Cruz in 2018 and the presidential nomination in 2020.

But even if Mr McConaughey declined the invitation from the Libertarians (whose own candidate selection system would be his first hurdle) many believe there could still be space for a third party, or a high-profile, Independent candidate.

The most recent high-profile success story is Vermonts Bernie Sanders, the longest-serving Independent senator, who has switched back and forth between Independent and Democrat several times.

While his 2016 and 2020 Democrat presidential runs were unsuccessful, some analysts credit Senator Sanders grassroots campaigns with pushing the party further left.

In March a New York Times op-ed conceded that the time may be right for a third-party of the liberal centre to rise, showing respect for the outcome of elections, the rule of law [and] freedom of speech but scepticism of identity politics ... dictators and demagogues.

Conservative columnist Bret Stephens wrote: This is not a political party, yet. But it could be the seeds of a party.

Alright, alright, alright.

View post:
Matthew McConaughey is making calls as he mulls a run for Texas governor - The Independent

Leslie Baum Rossi, a Republican, appeared headed toward a victory in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives 59th Legislative District special election as of midnight on Wednesday.

But complete unofficial results were not released.

In Somerset County, where all election day votes but none of the mail-in were announced, Rossi had 2,320 votes, compared to 812 for Democrat Mariah Fisher and 58 for Libertarian Robb Luther. Meanwhile, in Westmoreland County, with 38 of 41 precincts reporting, Rossi had 7,624 votes, compared to 4,074 for Fisher and 325 for Luther.

They were running in a special election to fill the seat left vacant by the death of Rep. Mike Reese, a Republican, earlier this year.

In a previous interview with The Tribune-Democrat, Rossi described her political views by saying, My values are very far right. Im pro-Second Amendment. Im pro-life. I really have no liberal anything. Im far right. Im a far-right conservative for the working class.

Rossi is an ardent supporter of former President Donald Trump.

Luther, a marketing professional with a Pittsburgh firm, left the Republican Party, becoming a Libertarian, because he did not support the claim that the 2020 presidential election was stolen from Trump, which turned into a central belief for the GOP over the past six months.

As a Libertarian, we run of principle, Luther said during an interview around 11 p.m. We know were a third party, so we know its a stretch. But we go out there and give it everything we have.

We are making critical coverage of the coronavirus available for free. Please consider subscribing so we can continue to bring you the latest news and information on this developing story.

Dave Sutor is a reporter for The Tribune-Democrat. He can be reached at814-532-5056. Follow him on Twitter@Dave_Sutor.

View original post here:
Rossi holds big lead in 59th Legislative District special election - TribDem.com

Kyle Wingfield| Opinion contributor

This is a column by Kyle Wingfield, president and CEO of theGeorgia Public Policy Foundation, a Libertarian-leaning policy think tank based in Atlanta.

No government, Ronald Reagan once observed, ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!

That was true when Reagan said it almost 60 years ago. Nothing in the intervening years has proven him wrong.

Trouble is, nowadays were launching government programs by the trillions of dollars. And theres depressingly little reason to believe well see them disappear once the crisis used to justify them has ended.

Consider the stimulus package Congress passed in 2009, in the name of fighting the previous recession. That package, which eventually weighed in at more than $800 billion, was alleged to be one-time funding that would indeed disappear.

No such luck. Federal spending in 2009 surpassed $3 trillion for the first time, checking in at just over $3.5 trillion. It never again fell below $3.4 trillion. The one-time stimulus spending simply came to be baked into the cake.

Every number I just cited is fairly quaint by todays standards. Congress spent $3.5 trillion last year on COVID-19 relief bills alone, tacking on another $1.9 trillion earlier this year.

If you dont think these mind-boggling sums are on track to become permanent features of the federal landscape, recall that President Joe Biden has proposed more than $4 trillion in additional new spending. At least that amount would be spent over the course of several years. On the other hand, its only May; more proposals are probably on the way.

Just as the sweets you eat today will hang around your waistline well after tomorrow if you dont do something about it, consider one specific example of where thats likely to happen: education spending.

For decades now, spending on public education has been rising steadily, well out of line with increases in student enrollment (which has risen much more modestly) or standardized test scores (which have been mostly flat). Yet, the only refrain we hear from the education establishment is that our schools are underfunded.

We hear that even now, with costs related to the pandemic offered as a reason. Thats not really a reason. Its an excuse.

Georgia has 180 city and county school districts. After the 2019 fiscal year, the last one completed before the pandemic, their collective financial reserves were almost $3.2 billion. A year later, after the brutal first few months of the pandemic, and the attendant costs of moving suddenly to virtual platforms such as WiFi hotspots and laptops for students, that number was wait for it almost $3.8 billion.

Thats right: Georgia school districts collective reserves increased by more than $600 million even as things were collapsing all around them.

To be fair, not every district fared so well. Thirty-five districts saw their fund balances fall, some by several million dollars. But far more enjoyed increases, by more than $1 million apiece for almost half of the districts.

Its true that districts have since weathered two years of austerity cuts to their state funding, totaling almost $730 million. Even so, thats a fraction of the nearly $6.8 billion theyve received so far in federal emergency funding.

Add it all up changes in reserve funds, decreases in state funding and surges of federal funding and Georgias school districts are better off by more than $6.6 billion. Thats most of the way toward doubling their annual state funding. And every single district, even the ones that spent down some of their reserves, was net positive.

If you believe the education establishment will simply watch that money disappear, Ive got a desert in southeast Georgia to sell you.

It wont be long before we hear this money described not gratefully as a lifeline during a difficult time, but solemnly as how we should have been funding education all along.

There will be little accounting for how it was spent or what it achieved. Itll just become the baseline against which all future education spending is measured.

For once, Id prefer we prove Ronald Reagan wrong.

Read the rest here:
Wingfield: Reagan's words on government programs still ring true - Savannah Morning News