Mediaboss Marketing

In a recent letter to the editor ("Blame the press for alienating half the country, June 28), Dennis Dabrowka excoriated the press for having "over an extended period of time and with growing aggressiveness, promoted progressive values [and] mocked conservative values."

Progressive ideas and values are what keep a society alive and moving forward, keeping it healthy and vital so that it can adjust to the many new challenges that face it on an almost daily basis. A progressive society also leads the way in discovering and implementing changes needed in an ever-changing world.

If a culture chooses conservative ideas and values as its guiding philosophy, that society will stagnate and eventually die. It is called the law of entropy. Even worse, regressive ideas and values, many being currently touted in our present political climate, are actively destructive and lead only to frustrating dreams of returning to what is now no longer viable: the dream of little country towns with their one-room school houses, the stalwart coal mining communities, a society owned and run by those of a certain ethnicity.

A country that embraces progressive ideas is one that is alive and understands that change is inevitable and works at how best to embrace it. A country that embraces conservative ideas is one that is unwilling to face change, wants everything to remain in the status quo and will become stagnant and dead. A country that embraces regressive ideas will actively bring abut the end to that society through its desire to regress to a "golden past.

Nancy Bruggman Spies, Jarrettsville

Send letters to the editor to talkback@baltimoresun.com. Please include your name and contact information.

Read more:
The nation needs to hear more from progressives - Baltimore Sun

Progressives have to devise a comprehensive alternative that responds to both the challenge of Russia and the failures of liberalism.

(Photo: Mike Maguire / Flickr)

Donald Trumps approval ratings remain dismal, yet the Democrats are 0 for 4 in congressional elections in 2017.

Not only do a majority of Americans believe that the president has tried to obstruct investigations into Russian interference in the 2016 elections but, by a 2 to 1 margin, Americans believe former FBI chief James Comeys account of his firing over Trumps version. And yet, 64 percent of Americans think that the RussiaGate investigations are hurting the country, and a majority wants Congress to focus on other issues, like the economy.

These polls tell you what you already know: The country is deeply divided, the Democrats havent been able to come up with a convincing way of bridging the divide, and the RussiaGate investigations are no substitute for a political platform.

Its a long way until the mid-term elections in November 2018 and the RussiaGate investigation is still in its infancy, but already the Democratic Party is in the midst of a second round of soul-searching about its strategy.

The first round took place after Donald Trump swept to a narrow Electoral College victory last November and largely hinged on whether the Sanders focus on economic inequality would have done better at the polls against Trump than Hillary Clintons more cautious centrism. This second round continues the debate on this question, but also throws in the wild cards of Russia and Trumps potential wrongdoing.

Shortly after Democrat Jon Ossoff lost a close race in Georgia this month, Democrats began to speak up about the electoral implications of RussiaGate. Reports The Hill:

In the wake of a string of special-election defeats, an increasing number of Democrats are calling for an adjustment in party messaging, one that swings the focus from Russia to the economy. The outcome of the 2018 elections, they say, hinges on how well the Democrats manage that shift.

We cant just talk about Russia because people back in Ohio arent really talking that much about Russia, about Putin, about Michael Flynn, Rep. Tim Ryan (D-Ohio) told MSNBCThursday. Theyre trying to figure out how theyre going to make the mortgage payment, how theyre going to pay for their kids to go to college, what their energy bill looks like.

At one level, this same debate recurs every election cycle do people care more about foreign policy questions or pocketbook issues? The answer is almost always: the economy. At another level, the debate is about whether Trumps unpopularity can be used against him. Its another enduring debate: take advantage of the incumbents negatives or field a positive alternative? As the 2004 and 2012 election results suggest, the opposition has to offer something intrinsically appealing or risk defeat.

The four recent by-elections dont provide much to go on in terms of any serious reevaluation of strategy. They all took place in Republican-friendly areas that have yet to feel any real impact from Trump administration policies. Ossoff, in particular, did much better than his districts partisan preferences should have dictated (6 percent better, according to the Cook Political Report). Nor did Ossoff spend a lot of time focused on Russia. He was no Sanderista, but he didnt make Donald Trump and his transgressions a central part of his campaign. Its hard to come to any definitive conclusions from this race or the other three.

Still, the by-elections have stimulated an important discussion. Where one comes down on the Russia vs. jobs question depends in large part on on how one assesses the reasons for Trumps victory and whether RussiaGate can or should function as a club to beat back the Republicans in future elections.

This debate is not just about electoral strategy. Its also about how the United States should address the current global crisis of liberalism.

Interpreting Trumps Victory

There are two ways of understanding how Donald Trump won the 2016 presidential election: the triple backlash versus the triple hack.

According to the triple backlash argument, Trump benefited from a worldwide rejection of liberalism: economically, politically, and culturally. Large sections of the United States that didnt benefit from economic globalization watched the disappearance of well-paying jobs from the Rust Belt, rural areas and small towns, and certain big cities.

These residents of America B blamed politicians from both parties for pushing economic reforms that shifted wealth upward and out of their communities. And they also blamed a range of others for what was wrong with the country: immigrants, people of color, social liberals. This economic-political-cultural backlash prepared the ground for a political outsider with an anti-immigrant agenda and a promise to revive Americas sunset industries.

The triple hack argument is much more focused. Trump hacked the system in three important ways, exploiting vulnerabilities to gain his narrow win.

The first hack was of the Electoral College. Trump didnt care about the popular vote. He knew that he could write off large swathes of the American electorate and concentrate his forces in a few swing states. So, for instance, the campaign pulled resources out of Virginia, an otherwise important state for Republicans to win, to focus on the Midwest.

The second hack was the news media. The Trump campaign exploited the mainstream medias fascination with the outrageous by constantly feeding it new outrages. It also generated a spate of fake news about Hillary Clinton that it distributed on the margins, in places like Breitbart News and through social media like Facebook and Trumps own Twitter account. Here, Russian journalists and trolls played a role, though probably not a pivotal one.

Finally, the campaign hacked Facebook in two critical ways. It poured money into an advertising campaign tailored to the preferences of over 200 million Americans contained in three separate databases to which the campaign maintained access. And it created a dark posts campaign to dissuade three groups of potential Democratic voters Sanders supporters, young women, and African Americans in urban areas from going to the polls.

On top of the official voter suppression efforts run by the Republican Party reducing early voting, implementing onerous voter ID laws this keep out the vote campaign was remarkably effective. In Detroit, a Democratic stronghold, Clinton received 70,000 fewer votes than Obama got in his last outing. She lost the state of Michigan by fewer than 11,000 votes.

If you believe in the triple backlash argument, youre more inclined to push for a political program that focuses on economic inequality and job creation, particularly in depressed parts of the country. If you lean more toward the triple hack argument, youre more likely to focus on counter-hack tactics a better media strategy, a better way of getting out the vote, a better way of using oppositional research to undermine the opponent (even to the point of impeachment).

Because the debate over the triple backlash opens up rifts within the party, the Democrats will likely focus on technical fixes to recapture Congress in 2018 and regain the 80,000 votes that Clinton lost by in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania in order to win the presidency in 2020. Such an approach would be wise tactically. But it would be disastrous in the long term.

Responding to RussiaGate

The investigation into Russian meddling in the American election has inevitably acquired a partisan taint. The Democrats have used it to question the legitimacy of the election and of the Trump administration more generally. Trump and the Republicans have accused their detractors of conducting a witch-hunt.

It may come out in the investigation that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russian government. It may also come out that Trump, as president, obstructed justice by firing Comey and covering up elements of collaboration. RussiaGate might bring down Donald Trump and some of his advisers. Or it might turn out to be a series of murky, unprovable assertions.

Regardless of the Trump teams actual involvement in the scandal, Russia tampered with the U.S. political system. Russian hackers acquired information from both major parties but decided only to weaponize the material from the Democrats to compromise its chances in the election. Hackers tried to break into 21 state electoral systems, stole nearly 90,000 voter records, and even altered voter information in at least one case. And a Russian disinformation campaign spread rumors, fake stories, and outrageous claims through a variety of media.

There is no concrete evidence that any of this interference tipped the election in favor of Trump. But it is a strange irony that American interest in RussiaGate is declining just as Congress and the media are providing revelations on a weekly basis.

For those who still dont acknowledge Vladimir Putins fingerprints on this electoral intrusion, consider that the United States has not been the only country targeted in this fashion. The same pattern was evident in France, where Russian hackers and disinformation specialists attempted to discredit Emmanuel Macron in an effort to boost the chances of pro-Kremlin candidate Marine Le Pen. The Washington Post reports:

In Lithuania, 100 citizen cyber-sleuths dubbed elves link up digitally to identify and beat back the people employed on social media to spread Russian disinformation. They call the daily skirmishes Elves vs. Trolls.

In Brussels, the European Unions East Stratcom Task Force has 14 staffers and hundreds of volunteer academics, researchers and journalists who have researched and published 2,000 examples of false or twisted stories in 18 languages in a weekly digest that began two years ago.

There is a peculiar tendency by some on the left to dismiss Russian activities because some of the media coverage has been inaccurate or over-hyped or because of a supposed effort to demonize Vladimir Putin as part of a campaign to revive Cold War tensions between Washington and Moscow.

Sure, some coverage has relied unwisely on single sources, but theres plenty of evidence of Russian malfeasance that cant be so easily dismissed, from Ukraine to Europe to the United States.

Moreover, Russian interference in the political process in the West has nothing to do with old Cold War dynamics. Vladimir Putin wants to build an alliance of far-right forces from white power activists in the United States and the National Front in France to Viktor Orban in Hungary and Euroskeptics throughout the continent with the Kremlin as the beacon of a new post-Western right-wing nationalist order.

This is no secret plan. Putin has been very open about his worldview.

Russia poses a challenge that goes far beyond the U.S. electoral system. RussiaGate isnt just a threat to the Democratic Party. Its a threat to democratic politics everywhere. And it requires not just a bipartisan response. It requires a transatlantic response.

Responding to the Crisis of Liberalism

Donald Trump has an answer for the crisis of liberalism and the triple backlash that produced his electoral victory.

Hes challenged the existing global economy by pulling the United States out of the Trans Pacific Partnership and has promised to tear up or significantly renegotiate a number of other trade deals. Hes challenged the liberal administrative state by attempting to gut social welfare and the government regulatory apparatus across the board. Hes challenged liberal norms of inclusion with his travel ban, an anti-immigrant crusade, and other policies that will adversely affect women, people of color, and the LGBT community.

Vladimir Putin also has an answer for the crisis of liberalism that brought Russia to its knees in the aftermath of the Soviet Unions collapse. He believes at least instrumentally in the three Cs: Christianity, conservativism, and Caucasians. He wants to create a reactionary, religious, and racist axis that unifies the Global North. But this is not about international cooperation. Putin thinks only in terms of Russian interests, which actually boil down to the economic interests of the oligarchs aligned with his regime.

Employing elves to battle Russian trolls isnt enough. Creating commissions to track and neutralize cyberattacks is not enough. Piling revelation upon revelation about RussiaGate is not enough. These tactics are necessary but not sufficient.

Instead of talking back to the TV, we should change the channel. Progressives need to come up with our own answer to the crisis of liberalism. We can borrow from progressive economic ideas of the past (government work programs, for example, to create jobs). We can borrow from populist political tactics (which worked so well for Bernie Sanders, for example). We can even borrow from liberalism itself (the notion of an open, inclusive society). But we must also come up with bold new programs around renewable energy, the revival of community, and international cooperation.

Russia versus jobs is in some ways a false dichotomy. Progressives have to devise a comprehensive alternative that responds to both the challenge of Russia and the failures of liberalism. If we dont, well not only lose the mid-terms and the next presidential election in the United States. Well lose the planet.

Read this article:
'RussiaGate' Alone Isn't Going to Put Progressives Back in Power - Foreign Policy In Focus

June 27, 2017; Rewire

Robyn Powell is one of the activists who staged a die-in in the hallway outside Senator Mitch McConnells offices last week on the day the Senate Republican version of the ACA repeal and replace bill was released. ADAPT, the group she was with, was trying to call attention to certain side effects of the proposed $800 billion in draconian cuts to Medicaid contained in both the House and the Senate bills.

Though she was pleased with all the attention the media gave the action, the tone of some of that coverage and some of the tweets made in response to those stories worried her. ADAPT, of course, has an impressive 30-year-long history of grassroots-fueled direct actionincluding civil disobedience, as she points out. But, for some reason, the press covered the action as if it were an oddity, with headlines like, Police drag away protesters in wheelchairs from Mitch McConnells office.

ADAPT originated in the 1980s to advocate for accessible public transportation. Today, the group focuses its efforts on fighting for home- and community-based services that enable people with disabilities to live in their communities rather than in nursing homes or institutions. While it received far less media attention, ADAPT protested in May 2017 in front of the White House and at the U.S. Capitol building, demanding passage of the Disability Integration Actwhich would make home- and community-based services a civil rightand opposing cuts to Medicaid. In fact, 83 protesters with disabilities were arrested at the White House last month.

She continued:

Shortly after this news began to break, however, I began seeing messages on Twitter questioning whether people with disabilities had the mental capacity to choose to protest. Some people remarked that Democrats forced people with disabilities to protest. Notably, one Fox News contributor tweeted, Protestors [sic] in Capitol also appear to be very fast readers, suggesting that they had not read the bill and did not know why they were protesting. Others questioned whether the protesters actually had disabilities.

This questioning of the protesters competence is offensive. As leaders of ADAPT explained to ABC News, this action was planned well in advance. The protesters were at the Capitol because of their fears and outrage concerning the proposed draconian cuts to Medicaid: The House healthcare bill included such drastic changes, and ADAPT correctly guessed the Senate bill would be similar.

She goes on to make the point that conservatives were not the only ones to get the story wrong. For instance, she writes, someone at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) tweeted, We cant believe this needs to be said, but its not okay to drag people out of wheelchairs when theyre protesting legislation. She writes that mainstream media and progressives alike focused on the optics of the arrests rather than the issue, often sensationalizing the protests. As ADAPT has explained, their members were well aware they would likely be arrested. Most have been arrested before for similar direct action. Civil disobedience is a vital part of ADAPTs activism and is the cornerstone of their success. Just like nondisabled people risk being arrested when engaging in civil disobedience, people with disabilities knowingly and willingly take the same chances. For them, the risk is worth it.

ADAPTs protest happened because people with disabilities are facing significant and imminent risk from proposed cuts to Medicaid. Indeed, just yesterday, the Congressional Budget Office issued its score, showing that the Senates proposed healthcare bill would cut Medicaid spending by more than $700 billion over the next ten years. One in five adults in the United States has a disability, and 30 percent of adults with disabilities receive Medicaid.

Powell was born with arthrogryposis, which affects her muscles and joints. She writes, I use a power wheelchair and have no use of my legs and limited use of my arms. I have received Medicaid most of my life. Medicaid pays for my durable medical equipment, such as my power wheelchair that needs to be replaced every five years and costs $30,000. Medicaid also pays for my personal care assistant (PCA) services, which allow me to live in the community. Throughout the day, PCAs assist me with my personal care needs. If I did not have PCA services, I could not live independently. I also could not work and pay taxes.

A similar story in Vox by Stephanie Woodward, another ADAPT activist, reiterates many of the points made by Powell, revealing a second tier of a media strategy that is an attempt at revealing the terrible damage that could be done through this so-called healthcare bill. She also writes of the loss that she might have suffered without Medicaid:

I was born a disabled child with spina bifida into a working-class family with Republican ideals. My father quickly learned that no amount of pulling on his bootstraps would get his disabled child health care coverage.

I needed countless surgeries, medications, and wheelchairs to keep me alive and independent. I had more than 15 surgeries on my spine, legs, and feet before I turned 10. I still have an affinity for hospital food because I ate it more often than I ate home cooked meals. It is no exaggeration when I say that my family depended on Medicaid to keep me alive. I was a Medicaid recipient until I graduated from law school when I was 25 and got a job with private insurance. I would not be here today if it wasnt for Medicaid.

Long story short, the loss of hundreds of billions of dollars in federal Medicaid funding Medicaid is shortsighted and inhumane public policy that would essentially curtail the liberties of the elderly and millions with disabilities, many to the degree of an unconscionable form of incarceration. It would create untold and often irreversible harm to low-income children and adults. Why did the media not pay more attention to that very real impending tragedy rather than the die-in? That, not the dragging of protesters from their wheelchairs, Powell writes, is the real story.Ruth McCambridge

Here is the original post:
ADAPT Activists to Media and Progressives: Check Yourselves - The Nonprofit Quarterly (registration)

Mark Levin's new book, "Rediscovering Americanism," an assault on the media and progressives and a call for Americans to take back their country, debuts today at No. 1 on Amazon.

Showing the draw of the New York Times bestselling author and top syndicated radio host, his book is already on the way to becoming another big seller.

"My new book covers a lot of territory philosophy, history, economics, law, culture, etc. And I look deeply into what is meant by Americanism, republicanism, individualism, capitalism. What do we mean by natural law, unalienable rights, liberty, and property rights? From where do these principles come? Why are they important?" he told Secrets.

It follows in the path of his other books and the nation: Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto; Ameritopia: The Unmaking of America; The Liberty Amendments; and Plunder and Deceit.

Secrets reviewed "Rediscovering Americanism" last week and wrote:

In the book, Levin attacks the embrace by the media, politicians and academia of progressive promises of a "utopia" defined by the end of personal freedom and individuality.

He has a grim name for it: "The Final Outcome." Levin wrote, "They reject history's lessons and instead are absorbed with their own conceit and aggrandizement in the relentless pursuit of a diabolical project, the final outcome of which is an oppression of mind and soul."

Levin added, "the equality they envision but dare not honestly proclaim, is life on the hamster wheel, where one individual is indistinguishable from the next."

Paul Bedard, the Washington Examiner's "Washington Secrets" columnist, can be contacted at pbedard@washingtonexaminer.com

Continued here:
Mark Levin book condemning media, progressives, debuts No. 1 on ... - Washington Examiner

Fresno Bee

Reactive violence by progressives only strengthens Trump Fresno Bee The recent congressional shooting is just another example of the disease of extremism infecting our country. It is not extremism of the left alone, as fake news experts Rep. Devin Nunes and Trump would have you believe. It is extremism alone, the idea ...

More here:
Reactive violence by progressives only strengthens Trump - Fresno Bee