Mediaboss Marketing

Behold science, the sword and the shield of progressivism.

Over the course of the pandemic (and before that, in debates over climate change, stem cells, etc.), liberals have insisted that we must listen to science and heed the scientists. It was a cornerstone of President-elect Joe Bidens campaign and a constant refrain of President Trumps critics.

Taken literally, I endorse the phrase listen to science wholeheartedly. Scientists have important things to say to policymakers and citizens alike and lets not forget that in a democracy, voters are policymakers, too. A well-informed electorate is a useful check on ill-informed politicians.

The problem, however, is that the people who say listen to science tend not to mean it literally but figuratively, and worse, intermittently.

In the aftermath of George Floyds killing in May, massive protests against racism and police brutality erupted across the nation. The point of the protests (at least, most of them) was noble and understandable. But the same champions of science suddenly changed their tune about mass gatherings, because this was a good cause.

In a pluralistic society, the definition of a good cause is going to vary. Telling people that they cant see their dying parents, attend a funeral or make a living because science says its too risky but that protesting systemic racism and police brutality is OK is a great way to convince millions of people that listen to science is a weaponized political term, not a universal apolitical standard.

Indeed, liberals handed Trump precisely the kind of foil he wanted. At rallies, the president would tell the packed crowds that they dont want you to go to church, work, school or sporting events, but they think social-justice protests are fine. He even started calling his rallies protests to highlight the double standard.

Some epidemiologists made things worse by stepping out of their lanes.

We should always evaluate the risks and benefits of efforts to control the virus, Jennifer Nuzzo, an epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins, declared on Twitter. In this moment, the public-health risks of not protesting to demand an end to systemic racism greatly exceed the harms of the virus.

Im open to the idea that if the protests this summer could have ended racism, the benefits would outweigh the risks. But where is the evidence that happened? Is racism over now? Heck, where was the evidence that such an outcome was in the realm of the possible in the first place?

I trust epidemiologists to explain how epidemiology works. But there is no transitive property to their expertise. The opinion that the protests would even come close to eradicating systemic racism and police brutality is just that an opinion, and a flimsy one at that. Moreover, the opinion of medical scientists on such matters has no more authority than that of plumbers or electricians and less than that of many social scientists or, dare I say it, politicians.

Which brings us to the point. Again, politicians should listen to scientists, but at the end of the day, they must consider factors from outside science. Thats not only fine but unavoidable.Using the phrase listen to the science as a shield for your preferred policies or as an attack on policies you dislike is not only bad faith, its a bad idea,because it will undermine the credibility of scientists and politicians alike.

Now that were entering the vaccination chapter of this horrible story, many of the same science worshippers are, in effect, telling the scientists to listen to politics.

In California, theres an effort to factor historical injustice into the vaccination rollout as a form of reparations. Because indigenous Americans were treated horribly in the past, the argument goes, they should be moved higher on the list of vaccine recipients.

A similar argument has emerged over whether the elderly those most likely to die from COVID-19 should be moved down the list, because older populations are whiter, as noted by Harald Schmidt, an assistant professor of medical ethics and health policy at the University of Pennsylvania.

Society is structured in a way that enables them to live longer, Schmidt told The New York Times. Instead of giving additional health benefits to those who already had more of them, we can start to level the playing field a bit.

Scientists are free to make such arguments, but these arent scientific arguments. They are political opinions, and they dont become any more legitimate simply because you wear a lab coat at work. So by all means, listen to the scientists, but listen very carefully, because they might be saying things that arent very scientific.

Twitter:@JonahDispatch

Visit link:
Progressives have made a mockery of the slogan 'listen to science' - New York Post

Over the course of the pandemic (and before that, in debates over climate change, stem cells, etc.), liberals have insisted that we must listen to science and heed the scientists. It was a cornerstone of President-elect Joe Bidens campaign and a constant refrain of Donald Trump critics.

Taken literally, I endorse the phrase listen to science wholeheartedly. Scientists have important things to say to policymakers and citizens alike and lets not forget that in a democracy, voters are policymakers too. A well-informed electorate is a useful check on ill-informed politicians.

The problem, however, is that the people who say listen to science tend not to mean it literally but figuratively, and worse, intermittently.

In the aftermath of George Floyds killing in May, massive protests against racism and police brutality erupted across the nation. The same champions of science suddenly changed their tune about mass gatherings because this was a good cause.

In a pluralistic society, the definition of a good cause is going to vary. Telling people that they cant see their dying parents, attend a funeral or make a living because science says its too risky but that protesting systemic racism and police brutality is OK is a great way to convince millions of people that listen to science is a weaponized political term, not a universal apolitical standard.

Indeed, liberals handed Trump precisely the kind of foil he wanted. At rallies, the president would tell the packed crowds that they dont want you to go to church, work, school or sporting events, but they think social-justice protests are fine. He even started calling his rallies protests to highlight the double standard.

Some epidemiologists made things worse by stepping out of their lanes.

We should always evaluate the risks and benefits of efforts to control the virus, Jennifer Nuzzo, an epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins, declared on Twitter. In this moment the public health risks of not protesting to demand an end to systemic racism greatly exceed the harms of the virus.

Im open to the idea that if the protests this summer could have ended racism, the benefits would outweigh the risks. But where is the evidence that happened? Is racism over now?

I trust epidemiologists to explain how epidemiology works. But there is no transitive property to their expertise. The opinion that the protests would even come close to eradicating systemic racism and police brutality is just that an opinion, and a flimsy one at that. Moreover, the opinion of medical scientists on such matters has no more authority than that of plumbers or electricians.

Which brings us to the point. Again, politicians should listen to scientists, but at the end of the day, they must consider factors from outside science. Thats not only fine but unavoidable. Using the phrase listen to the science as a shield for your preferred policies or as an attack on policies you dislike is not only bad faith, its a bad idea, because it will undermine the credibility of scientists and politicians alike.

Now that were entering the vaccination chapter of this horrible story, many of the same science worshipers are, in effect, telling the scientists to listen to politics.

In California, theres an effort to factor historical injustice into the vaccination rollout as a form of reparations. Because indigenous Americans were treated horribly in the past, the argument goes, they should be moved higher on the list of vaccine recipients.

A similar argument has emerged over whether the elderly those most likely to die from COVID-19 should be moved down the list because older populations are whiter, as noted by Harald Schmidt, an assistant professor of medical ethics and health policy at the University of Pennsylvania.

Instead of giving additional health benefits to those who already had more of them, we can start to level the playing field a bit, Schmidt told the New York Times.

Scientists are free to make such arguments, but these arent scientific arguments. They are political opinions, and they dont become any more legitimate simply because you wear a lab coat at work.

Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch.

See the original post:
For progressives, listen to science is subjective - Boston Herald

WASHINGTON When President-elect Joe Biden announced the core of his national security team on Monday, there was one glaring omission: his choice for defense secretary.

That absence is leading to questions about whether Michle Flournoy, a politically moderate Pentagon veteran whose confirmation would give the Defense Department its first woman leader, remains the odds-on favorite for the role.

The doubts came as Flournoy has been under pressure from the left over her defense industry ties and relatively hawkish views. Flournoy joined Booz Allen Hamiltons board and co-founded defense consulting firm WestExec Advisors in 2018, and, in 2007, co-founded the Center for a New American Security think tank, which relies on support from defense firms.

On Monday, Biden announced Antony Blinken, his longtime adviser and Flournoys partner at WestExec, as his nominee for secretary of state. Biden also selected Jake Sullivan for national security adviser; Alejandro Mayorkas for homeland security secretary; Linda Thomas-Greenfield as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations; and Avril Haines for director of national intelligence. Haines also has ties to WestExec.

Politico reported Monday that while Flournoy is still a strong contender, Biden is not entirely sold on her, though its unclear how big of a role the resistance from the left is playing. Jeh Johnson, President Barack Obamas second secretary of homeland security, is another top candidate and he would be the first Black defense secretary, but he could also concern progressives as a member of Lockheed Martins board.

Fox News reported Monday that Flournoy will be the pick, but the timing of the move is not clear. The Biden transition team did not respond to a request for comment.

There is a push to support Flournoys candidacy amid the uncertainty.

Sign up for our Early Bird Brief Get the defense industry's most comprehensive news and information straight to your inbox

Subscribe

Enter a valid email address (please select a country) United States United Kingdom Afghanistan Albania Algeria American Samoa Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Congo, The Democratic Republic of The Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote D'ivoire Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands (Malvinas) Faroe Islands Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Gambia Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guam Guatemala Guinea Guinea-bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and Mcdonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hong Kong Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran, Islamic Republic of Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Korea, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Republic of Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People's Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Macedonia, The Former Yugoslav Republic of Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Micronesia, Federated States of Moldova, Republic of Monaco Mongolia Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands Netherlands Antilles New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island Northern Mariana Islands Norway Oman Pakistan Palau Palestinian Territory, Occupied Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Puerto Rico Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Helena Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and The Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia and Montenegro Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and The South Sandwich Islands Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syrian Arab Republic Taiwan, Province of China Tajikistan Tanzania, United Republic of Thailand Timor-leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States United States Minor Outlying Islands Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela Viet Nam Virgin Islands, British Virgin Islands, U.S. Wallis and Futuna Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe

Thanks for signing up!

By giving us your email, you are opting in to the Early Bird Brief.

A group of 11 military and veteran support organizations endorsed Flournoy over the weekend, praising her undisputed expertise and calling for a swift confirmation, should she be nominated. And after news of some Biden picks leaked without a defense secretary on Monday, the No Exceptions initiative, which pushed to open all combat positions to women, activated its email network to urgently gather signatures for an open letter to support Flournoy as a historic choice.

Michle was a tremendous ally to No Exceptions in our fight to open all combat roles in the U.S. Armed Forces to women. Now, its our turn to support her, said the email, which was described as time sensitive. The group hoped to release their letter Tuesday or Wednesday, a spokeswoman said.

Flournoys Pentagon experience is not in doubt, as she has served multiple times in the Defense Department, starting in the 1990s and most recently as the undersecretary of defense for policy from 2009 to 2012.

Still, progressives wary of Flournoys business dealings want Biden to show a break from President Donald Trump, who selected two defense secretaries from industry: former Boeing executive Patrick Shanahan and former Raytheon executive Mark Esper.

Left-leaning Reps. Mark Pocan, D-Wis., and Barbara Lee, D-Calif., wrote a letter this month asking Biden not to nominate a defense secretary who has ties to defense contractors, which was seen as a veiled shot at Flournoy. Meanwhile, progressive groups are broadly calling for greater transparency into the potential conflicts of interest of executive branch appointees.

After the rampant corruption and conflicts of interest weve seen in the Trump administration, it would behoove the Biden administration to really demonstrate they are charting a different course and they are adding some protections to restore faith and trust in these institutions, said Stephen Miles, executive director of Win Without War, a progressive foreign policy organization.

Another concern for progressives is that Flournoy, as reported by Foreign Policy, clashed with Biden over U.S. force levels in Afghanistan when he was vice president and she was Pentagon policy chief during the Obama administration and in the past, she pushed to keep more U.S. forces in Iraq. (Biden is seeking a swift pullout from Afghanistan with a residual counter-terrorism force.)

In a tweet on Sunday, Rep. Ro Khanna, a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus and House Armed Services Committee, raised questions about Flournoy publicly and by name.

Flournoy supported the war in Iraq & Libya, criticized Obama on Syria, and helped craft the surge in Afghanistan. I want to support the Presidents picks, said Khanna, D-Calif., referring to Biden. But will Flournoy now commit to a full withdrawal from Afghanistan & a ban on arms sales to the Saudis to end the Yemen war?

Progressives and grassroots advocates spurred congressional actions around ending U.S. support for the Saudi-led war in Yemen an end Biden supports and is included in the 2020 Democratic platform and they want to ensure his administration keeps human rights concerns at the center of a new, less-militarized U.S. foreign policy.

I think progressives effectively pulled together with the Biden campaign to get a number of important foreign policy priorities into the Democratic Party platform, said Matt Duss, foreign policy adviser to Sen. Bernie Sanders. Now progressives are going to want to hear from any nominee how theyre going to be following through on those commitments.

Flournoy has taken the concerns of progressive foreign policy groups seriously enough that she convened a call with them, and she offered assurances she opposed the sale of offensive weapons to Saudi Arabia that could be used in Yemen, according to Politico.

Because Flournoy, Blinken and other Biden team figures have maintained or at least opened communications with progressive groups, some of their representatives say their intent isnt to block Flournoy or other nominees, but to put progressive issues and foreign policy concerns on the table.

You dont have to protest outside the White House when you can go into the White House and make the case for your position, Miles said. That doesnt mean you never protest outside the White House, but when theres a time and a place for it.

View post:
No SecDef pick from Biden as Flournoy hits resistance from progressives - DefenseNews.com

Though there are many positions left to fill, Bidens Cabinet announcements so far fit a pattern: The former vice president has chosen people for top positions who havent sparked bitter or protracted fights with the left without giving progressives any major wins. None of Bidens nods have been wildly off the mark to the left flank of the Democratic Party. And the president-elect has also selected leaders who, despite being moderate, have spent time building relationships with progressives.

It could have been a lot worse, said Rebecca Katz, a progressive strategist who advised incoming left-wing Rep. Jamaal Bowmans campaign, adding that things could still change. Hes not picking any lefties. Hes just picking people who havent alienated the left, who are listening.

Several progressive elected officials, aides and activists have, in turn, offered cautious praise of Biden during the transition period and avoided serious battles with him so far. They stressed, however, that it is early in the process and things could certainly shift, especially during confirmation hearings. Still, their posture toward Bidens Cabinet selections to date stands out when compared with the no-holds-barred brawl between moderate and left-wing Democrats in Congress that has been raging since Election Day.

Progressives said that for many of Bidens picks, theres been a worse option that theyre grateful he didnt choose. In many of those cases, they lobbied his team to keep those people out.

For Treasury, the fear was that he might go with Rhode Island Gov. Gina Raimondo, a former venture capitalist who is disliked by labor unions because she cut pensions. For secretary of State, Blinken is viewed on the left as preferable to moderate Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.), a longtime Biden ally. For his chief of staff, they implored Biden to pick his eventual choice, Ron Klain, who played a role in Bidens outreach to progressives this year, over Steve Ricchetti, a former lobbyist.

Progressives are breathing a little bit of a sigh of relief because the wing of the party that Joe Biden comes from is not getting everything they want here, said Waleed Shahid, spokesperson for the Justice Democrats, which recruited Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to run for Congress. Meaning The Third Way, conservative wing of the party.

Progressive immigrant rights groups such as United We Dream tepidly welcomed the appointment of Alejandro Mayorkas to head Homeland Security, who as the first Latino to potentially lead the department could bring a different tone.

But Biden and Mr. Mayorkas were part of the team that unfortunately oversaw millions of deportations, said Greisa Martinez Rosas, executive director of United We Dream. And we see our role as holding everyone accountable to ensure that does not happen again.

Some even go beyond faint approval. Liberals closely aligned with the Warren wing of the progressive movement said theres a lot to be happy about in Bidens early selections.

The biggest turning point was actually the selection of Ron Klain, which we saw as extremely positive news, said Adam Green, co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee. That sent a broader signal that when there are multiple options on the table for Biden, and one of them is most acceptable to progressives that he will go in that direction, keeping peace in the land.

Some progressives, however, criticize left-wing groups for going too far in applauding Bidens safe choices.

I dont want to exaggerate. John Kerrys fine. [But] this need to pretend that these milquetoast nominees with mixed records are great progressive heroes is pretty pathetic, said David Sirota, Sanders former speechwriter. What I think we need right now are advocacy groups and activists and journalists to just be honest about who these nominees are.

Part of Bidens successful navigation so far seems to stem from his own strength in nurturing political relationships and his decision to tap personnel with similar attributes. Biden gets along with Sanders and Warren, both of whom have sought top jobs in the administration. Climate activists said Kerry worked well with them on policy task forces that Biden formed with Sanders after the primary. Likewise, Matt Duss, Sanders foreign policy adviser, said Blinken helped in the lefts attempt to end U.S. support for the war in Yemen, which meant a lot.

During the campaign, Tony and his team made a point to engage regularly with progressive groups as part of Bidens broader effort to reach out to the left and unify the party, said Duss. Theres no doubt it helped them win, and continuing to do it now will help them govern.

Progressives said another reason Biden likely went with what they see as broadly acceptable picks not only to them, but also to moderates and even some conservatives is because of the close divide in Congress. Democrats hold a slim majority in the House and, at best, would face the same situation in the Senate if the party wins two runoff races in Georgia. That is forcing Biden to appeal more to the left, they said.

Liberal Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) said progressives arent going to come out swinging early when they see a lot to applaud. For one, he said, the appointees understand the national security implications of climate change. And Yellen, Schatz said, is closer to a dream pick than people may realize because the nominee represents a big formal break from the idea that austerity helps the overall economy.

POLITICO NEWSLETTERS

Tracking the appointments, the people, and the power centers of the next administration.

Still, the left needs to see the full pantheon of nominees before we make a judgment about whether this team is sufficiently committed to the kinds of change necessary, he said. At the same time, Democrats need to be vigilant against the-cupboard-is-bare instinct" when spending money for top priorities, said Schatz. Progressives will push Biden on that point as he makes appointments, but he cautioned, if we freak out, hair-on-fire about the small stuff, nobody's going to listen to us about the big stuff.

That isnt to say Biden hasnt received any blowback from progressives. The Sunrise Movement, a group of young climate change activists, said it felt like a betrayal when Biden tapped Rep. Cedric Richmond (D-La.) as a senior adviser. The left-wing organization Demand Progress lists Ricchetti, whom Biden has empowered to be the White House liaison to Congress and corporate leaders, as a Person of Interest on its website aimed at keeping corporate insiders out of the administration.

Moving forward, progressives major focus is on excluding Democrats who favor austere governing from Bidens team. In recent days, progressive lawmakers and strategists have launched petitions and tweeted their opposition to some Obama-era carryovers. For instance, they are trying to keep centrist former Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel and deficit hawk Bruce Reed away from the Biden White House, particularly in top spots such as Transportation secretary and the head of the Office of Management and Budget.

Progressives also oppose Mike Morell, who has defended drone strikes, for CIA director and BlackRock managing director Brian Deese for the National Economic Council. Jennifer Epps-Addison, president of the left-wing Center for Popular Democracy, which endorsed Sanders in the primary, said the appointments of Deese or Reed would feel like a bridge really far away from bringing these different factions within the party together.

Similarly, Schatz said, a Reed appointment is worth watching, but he didnt want to assume that, because Reed was a key presence in a fiscal reform commission derided by progressives under former President Barack Obama, his views are locked and that he's gonna work with Third Way and cut spending.

In a statement provided by Biden's team, former presidential candidate Tom Steyer came to Reed's defense: "He's a climate champion who will fully support the Biden clean energy plan, and anyone who thinks he will put budget deficits over the needs of working families struggling to make ends meet during a pandemic simply doesn't know Bruce."

Third Way, the center-left think tank, described its credentials as being from "the Joe Biden wing of the Democratic Party" and said "no Democrats in their right minds" are advocating spending cuts amid multiple crises.

The left is also urging Biden to go with Rep. Deb Haaland (D-N.M.), a Warren ally, for secretary of the Interior, and keeping a close eye on whom Biden nominates to the Justice Department. And the Progressive Change Campaign Committee is pushing Biden on lower-level government positions, collaborating with some 40 liberal and nonpartisan groups on a list sent by the Progressive Change Institute to his transition team.

"It's not as progressive as I would like it to be, but it's good news that Biden so far is also keeping conservative Democrats who are hostile to progressives, like Rahm Emanuel and Bruce Reed, out, said Bowman of Bidens picks. The Cabinet process is just the beginning these are the folks we have to work with, but also the folks we're going to push."

More here:
Biden keeps the peace with first Cabinet picks - POLITICO

When we were Capitol Hill staffers more than a decade ago, the Congressional Progressive Caucus had members, but not much power.

Times have changed. As a result of both successful Democratic primaries and proactive power-building by progressive incumbents over the past four years, a reformed and strengthened CPC is now poised to make progressives a more powerful force within the House than at any time in modern American history.

They arent just the four-member squad but also include newly elected progressive insurgents like Marie Newman, Cori Bush, Mondaire Jones and Jamaal Bowman. Combined with Pramila Jayapal, the CPCs current co-chair, and her deep bench of committed progressives like Ro Khanna and Lloyd Doggett, the squad has become a platoon on the way to a battalion.

Its not just votes though, its how you organize those votes. For years, the CPC has grown in size, but membership has traditionally required little of its members. No more. Just last week, the CPC passed game-changing reforms to its own caucus rules. These rule changes will empower the CPC to organize itself to negotiate and vote as a single bloc on specific legislation to secure progressive improvements or remove dangerous provisions. With just a slim margin in the House, Democratic leadership will need the votes of progressives to pass legislation. The CPC now has the opportunity to use this leverage to ensure bills include progressive priorities.

Conservatives have long been at this game. Weve seen the consequences when progressives are not willing to wield the collective power of their votes. Over and over again, House Democratic leadership has asked progressives to compromise their values to pass bills that have been watered down or contain trade-offs designed to satisfy the most conservative members of the Democratic Caucus. The reality is that those conservative members have been better organized and more willing to make clear demands backed up by their votes. With this newly organized and empowered CPC, progressives have cards to play in all future legislating during the Biden era cards they just havent had during the Trump era.

See the original post here:
House progressives are building something new, exciting, and powerful - Roll Call