Mediaboss Marketing

ANALYSIS Only a few months from now, populist Democratic progressives around the country hoping to elect one of their own to the White House will need to choose between VermontSen.Bernie Sanders and MassachusettsSen.Elizabeth Warren.

Do they back the angry Democratic socialist, or the feisty, anti-corporate populist who wants to break up the banks and big tech companies? One says he is trying to lead a revolution. The other calls for dramatic change, often dismissing critics in her own party for regurgitating Republican talking points.

Only one ofthem is now a front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination. That would be Warren.

Sanders is passionate and intent on becoming the Democratic standard bearer, and hes running well in key state and national polls. But its still very difficult to see the 78-year-old Vermonter becoming the Democratic nominee next year.

This is Sanders second presidential rodeo, but unlike four years ago, he isnt a quirky novelty this time. He now shares his lane with another top-tier hopeful who echoes his populism. That alternative, Warren, is a woman, is eight years younger than Sanders, and is a strong enough speaker to have moved from near obscurity in the race to the top tier.

And unlike the Vermonter, Warren hasnt embraced socialism.

ButSanderscampaign, which has plenty of money, shows no signs of stopping after a relatively brief medical scare. Hes a man on a mission, and people like that dont quit easily. He took on Hillary Clinton (and the Democratic National Committee), after all, when nobody else was willing to do so. Its hard to believe he could be scared out of the presidential race by Warren.

And that is a problem for the Massachusetts Democrat. For as long as Sanders remains in the contest, Warren will have a hard time consolidating support among the partys left.

But Warren has another problem, which follows from her partys desire to beat Trump next year. Many Democrats in the business and financial communities believe her ultimate agenda is not very different from Sanders when it comes to raising taxes, sticking it to corporate America, distrusting the free market, adding new entitlements and piling on layers of additional debt to pay for new government programs.

Warrens continued embrace of Medicare for All has become a substantial problem for her. Its not just the cost of that program. Its the larger message that the government knows what is good for you better than you do. Many in the party prefer Medicare for All Who Want It or Obamacare with a public option, both of which seem more appealing and manageable to pragmatic legislators and voters.

Warren has had plenty of chances to slide to the right slightly, but she never takes them. On health care, all she needed to do to broaden her appeal was to emphasize her willingness to negotiate with others in her party. She could make it clear that while she prefers Medicare for All, she is certainly open to compromise.

But would Warren undermine her own appeal with populist, grassroots progressives, who favor dramatic proposals and not piecemeal changes, by giving herself some wiggle room on health insurance? Possibly. But it might also make her seem more reasonable to those worried about her agenda.

Not satisfied to paint herself into a corner on only one issue, Warren has unveiled a K-12 education plan that goes after charter schools. The Washington Post editorial board immediately challenged her, arguing that when it comes to education, Ms. Warren has a plan that seems aimed more at winning the support of the powerful teachers unions than in advancing policies that would help improve student learning.

On one hand, you can say that Warren is simply protecting her left flank, making sure that she doesnt lose true believers to Sanders. But the problem isher positions are less about campaign strategy and more about her views of government and her views of corporate America and the affluent.

Warren may not call herself a Democratic socialist, but her rhetoric and overall approach to issues like health insurance and education puts her far enough left that she would have a hard time appealing to pragmatists and political independents.

Of course, Warren (or Sanders) would energize the Democratic base and turn out voters who sat on their hands (or voted third party) in 2016, and that could be enough to flip the White House. But Warren and Sanders populist progressive positioning would also make it much easier for the GOP to make the 2020 election about them and socialism than about Donald Trump. And that may be the only way the president can win a second term.

Democratic candidates often move left in the primary but right if and when they make it to the general election, so its possible that Warren is merely following that well-traveled path. Maybe, if she gets her partys nomination, she will zig and then zag toward the center.

But like Sanders, Warren rarely (really, never) conveys the impression that she is prepared to build coalitions, negotiate with friends and foes alike, and eventually forge compromises to enact legislation. Put another way, both Sanders and Warren are as much prisoners of their ideology as Trump is a prisoner of his narcissism.

Get breaking news alerts and more from Roll Call on your iPhone.

See the original post:
Progressives are going to have to pick: Sanders or Warren? - Roll Call

A soldier stands in front of a courthouse in Pittsboro, N.C. He stands at ease, his fingers wrapped around the barrel of a bronze musket, his Confederate uniform gone green with age. He has stood there peacefully for more than a century but just last August, the Chatham County Board of Commissioners ruled that the statue was to be taken down.

Protestors gathered in two groups by the statue, on either side of the adjoining Sanford Road. On the left side of the street were progressives holding anti-racist signs, demanding that the statue a symbol of a racist history be demolished. To the right of the road were Chatham residents who stood in the defense of their heritage, waving Confederate flags.

The scene at the protests, each side spitting rude labels across the road, embodies the long-standing clash between progressive and conservative values in America. It is easy to point to the achievements of progressive movements emancipation, suffrage, civil rights, labor laws and decide that the clash has been settled: Progressives move history forward, while conservatives dig their heels into the ground to hold it back. The argument is not without merit; throughout the arc of history, every bend toward justice has been met by the conservators of an unjust status quo.

But this argument also leaves us with a troubling, divisive stereotype: Progressives are the party of justice, while conservatives stand in the way of progress. The very connotation held by these words progression against conservation leaves us with a reductive and unhelpful view of their underlying philosophies. Similarly unhelpful stereotypes are made of progressives, that they are the starry-eyed idealists, their naive aspirations having no hold on the real world.

The fact that these philosophies have come to be associated with Democrats or Republicans sticks us, politically, on either side of Sanford Road. Each group misapprehends the goals of the other, thus turning their opponents into boogeymen. Conservatives become guardians of broken, racist and unjust systems, while progressives are intent on ruining the nation in their attempts to perfect it.

The true ideology of conservatism has nothing to do with bigotry or injustice. Its foundations are in the respect for tradition and a belief in the maintenance of certain values whether these be religious, constitutional or cultural.

Take the policies of democratic socialism, one of the most progressive movements currently moving through our nation. The movement aims to take the policies of socialist countries like Sweden and Denmark and apply them to America. Democratic candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders has said of these policies: When I talk about democratic socialism, what I mean is moving away from where we are right now.

To a conservative, the idea of trading away ones values and way of life for free health care and college tuition is fundamentally objectionable. In light of the fact that Sweden and Denmarks socialist giveaways have saddled them with some of the highest tax rates in the world, the conservative desire to maintain American traditions seems somewhat more reasonable.

But what about the great American traditions of injustice, racism and inequality? Many criticize conservative thinking as regressive, the kind of stuck-in-its-ways mentality that has allowed injustice to persist for as long as it has. Even today, many necessary advancements are stalled back by a desire to keep things more or less the same.

Still, conservatism cannot be written off as regressive, or worse, racist in itself. The respect for tradition is not a bad thing; there are a great many traditions that we would respecting a respect for the rules of our Constitution. This respect is only faultworthy where the traditions are unjust, and though progressives have historically challenged injustice and exclusion, this does not make progressivism the righter of conservative wrongs.

Progressivism is often enough wrong or at least misguided on its own. The democratic socialist idea of free college tuition sounds like a fair and promising progression, but the same could not be said of its likely outcomes.

One reason for this is that free tuition actually raises drop out rates, as there is less incentive for students to complete their degrees. One Manhattan Institute study found that graduation rates were actually higher in G-7 countries that charged tuition as opposed to those with free college. This, on top of a host of other practical issues a direct harm to private colleges, an overcrowding of schools and a $70 billion price tag shows us that a more conservative approach might be better suited to the problem.

The bottom line is that neither progressivism nor conservatism can be removed without our country stagnating. Without a healthy clash of ideology, the state has only one voice and one direction not necessarily the right ones. The idea that growth is always achieved by progressives keeps us shouting from either side of the road; it keeps us from meeting somewhere in the middle and moving forward.

Dillon Cranston is a sophomore writing about politics. His column, Holding Center, runs every other Wednesday.

Go here to see the original:
Progressivism is not better than conservatism - Daily Trojan Online

President Donald Trump made an unannounced visit Saturday afternoon to the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center in Bethesda, Maryland.

The White House said the visit was for a "quick exam and labs" to kick-off the initial phase of his annual physical exam in anticipation of a "very busy 2020," according to CNN. Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham told Fox News' Jeanine Pirro on Saturday evening that the president is as "healthy as can be."

"He has more energy than anybody in the White House. That man works from 6 a.m. until very, very late at night," Grisham added.

Assurances from the White House did little to quash rumors and speculation about the 73-year-old president's health and joke about possible ailments.

Vox journalist Aaron Rupar tweeted that "Trump's trip to the hospital was 'routine' in the same way his call with the Ukrainian president was 'perfect.'" Meanwhile, progressive website DailyKos published a post early Sunday morning titled "Trump and his 'chest discomfort' go to Walter Reed" with screenshots of unsubstantiated internet rumors about the president's health.

Former Hillary Clinton campaign staffer Charlotte Clymer joked the "chest pain" rumors were "absurd" since "Trump doesn't have a heart," she tweeted.

Feminist author Amy Siskind used the occasion to attack Trump and urge journalists to investigate his hospital visit, as it could push the GOP to abandon the president. "I hope our media is digging into the truth behind this. We all know that dictators are only able to maintain power from strength. The moment Republicans smell weakness, they will turn on Trump like hyenas," she said on Twitter.

Progressive political pundit Bill Palmer joked that Trump's visit to Walter Reed was the start of a bad day that could culminate with the president "going to prison."

Another former Clinton aide, Claude Taylor, speculated on Twitter that the president was being treated for a "panic attack."

Whatever may have prompted the president's visit to Walter Reed Hospital on Saturday, Trump was apparently back to his usual self by Sunday.

The commander in chief addressed his unannounced trip and spent much of the day tweeting. "Visited great family of a young man under major surgery at the amazing Walter Reed Medical Center, said the president. "Also began phase one of my yearly physical. Everything very good (great!). Will complete next year."

President Trump then spent much of the morning praising allies, like Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) and former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi, as well as taking shots at foes, including the New York Times' Paul Krugman and former Republican Matthew Dowd.

View post:
Progressives joke and speculate about Trump's health after an unscheduled hospital visit - TheBlaze

Today, geographer Scott Warrenis scheduled to be tried for the second time by the U.S. Department of Justice for acting on his faith. His first trial ended in a hung jury last June. Arrested in 2018, Warren was charged with harboring certain aliens for providing food and water to two men he encountered wandering the Arizona desert. His attorneys have explained that, because of his spiritual beliefs, he could not in good conscience turn away two exhausted, injured men seeking food, water and shelter.

Warren is among dozens of people nationwide targeted by the U.S. government for acting on their religious beliefs. Despite the Department of Justices stated commitment to religious liberty, its lawyers have challenged these faith practitioners in court. Often, the DOJ disputes the notion that they are legitimately religious, arguing that non-conservatives who bring religious liberty claims are acting on their political, rather than faith-based, commitments.

Take Warren: Citing the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) the law that allowed Hobby Lobby to not pay for its employees contraceptives he has argued that he should be permitted to help migrants as required by his faith. In court, Warren explained: [F]or me, we most definitely do unto others as we would want to have done unto us. When we come into interaction with another person, that person is us and we are that person.

In response, DOJ attorneys tried to cast doubt on Warrens religious identity, suggesting that he is not entitled to protection because he is not a member of any formal denomination. In a hearing, the federal prosecutorasked whether Warren practiced Judaism, Islam or the Bahai faith, which he does not.

Yet religious liberty rights in the U.S. apply to all people of faith, not just members of organized religions. The prosecutors unsuccessful attempt to paint Warren as not legitimately religious merely because he does not belong to a formal denomination is just one example of a larger problem within the current Justice Department. Warrens hearing is by no means the only, or even the most egregious, example of the DOJ impugning people of faith whose religious beliefs are at odds with the Trump administrations policy goals.

After a group of Catholics was arrested for protesting at a military facility in Georgia, they brought a religious liberty defense, explaining that their protest was a prophetic action to raise the consciousness of society about the immorality of nuclear weapons. The Justice Department countered that their claim was an effort to propagandize and obtain secular public policy revisions tinged with post-hoc religious justification.

When a Philadelphia nonprofit attempted to open a safe-injection site for drug users as an exercise of its board members faith, noting on its website that [a]t the core of our faith is the principle that preservation of human life overridesany other considerations, the DOJ claimed the board members true motivation is socio-political or philosophical not religious and thus not protected by RFRA.

Although the DOJ has questioned the faith of litigants it perceives as politically progressive, Attorney General William BarrWilliam Pelham BarrBarr defends Trump's use of executive authority, slams impeachment hearings GOP eager for report on alleged FBI surveillance abuse DOJ watchdog won't let witnesses submit written feedback on investigation into Russia probe: report MORE has condemned progressives as militant secularists. In a recent speech, Barr claimed: Secularists, and their allies among the progressives, have marshaled all the force of mass communications, popular culture, the entertainment industry and academia in an unremitting assault on religion.

But Barr cant condemn the left as anti-religious while disputing the legitimacy of any religious beliefs that contradict his own. Numerous people have gone to court seeking the right to exercise their beliefs by, among other things, welcoming migrants, protesting nuclear proliferation and serving drug users. And while the departments own guidelines instruct agencies to accommodate religious practices to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, it has fought these requests aggressively.

A new report by the Law, Rights, and Religion Project at Columbia Law School, Whose Faith Matters? The Fight for Religious Liberty Beyond the Christian Right, offers a sweeping overview of the often-ignored religious liberty activism taking place outside of the conservative movement, including by those whose faith motivates them to assist immigrants, protect the environment, protest capital punishment, provide abortions, and preserve church-state separation.

The report challenges the right-wing campaign to conflate religious liberty with conservative Christianity and to paint those outside the right as anti-faith. Only by erasing their religious identity can Barr and the Trump administration claim to value religious freedom while putting Scott Warren and others behind bars for acting on their faith. In lifting up religious liberty activism outside the Christian right, we can recognize that it is the administration itself not the militant secularists that is engaged in an unremitting assault on the rights of conscience.

Elizabeth Reiner Platt is director of the Law, Rights, and Religion Project at Columbia Law School. The Projects faculty director submitted amicus briefs in the cases of Scott Warren, Safehouse and the Catholic anti-war protestors. Follow her on Twitter @lizrplatt.

Read more:
Losing their religion: AG Barr should recognize the faith of progressives | TheHill - The Hill

For many progressives, Jacindamania is waning, and its only natural to look around for a new champion. Some especially the young are looking to 25-year-old Green party MP Chle Swarbrick. There is talk across New Zealand of the Swarbrick effect, which saw a surge of young candidates in recent local government elections, supposedly inspired to stand for office by her political career.

The growing interest in Swarbrick comes as progressives have to watch Jacinda Arderns government struggle to fulfil the leftwing agenda many believed was promised at the election. From problems in housing, taxation, inequality, and the environment, the expectations of liberals and leftists have been repeatedly let down by a government making compromises, U-turns, or just failing to implement radical change.

Swarbricks rise to prominence was rapid. In 2016, at the age of 22 and entirely unknown, she ran for the mayoralty of Auckland, winning a creditable third place. This got her the attention of the Green party, which placed her at number seven on its party list. She was then elected as one of eight Green MPs in 2017, becoming our youngest MP for over 40 years.

Swarbrick is certainly capable of talking radically, and is willing to critique her own party publicly. In a recent opinion piece, she lamented the weakness of her partys own landmark Zero Carbon Bill (which passed in parliament last week), saying it was legislation a massive number of New Zealanders do not consider to be bold or progressive enough to deal with the problems of climate change.

Over her first two years in parliament, she has shone, being easily the most impressive of her 2017 intake of MPs. Shes also considered by many as the Greens top-performing MP, despite the fact that shes near the bottom of the caucus rankings, and her senior colleagues are government ministers.

Swarbrick led the public debate on drug law reform ahead of a binding referendum at next years election, and argued in favour of much greater government intervention and expenditure in the long-neglected area of mental health. She has talked openly about her own struggle with clinical depression.

Her star power got an unexpected boost when she hit the headlines across the globe for her sarcastic OK boomer retort to a political opponent in parliament. It underscored her status as some sort of new generational warrior.

Yet, the incident hasnt been entirely helpful for her credibility on the political left. Her new-found notoriety for being focused on generational politics might actually be detrimental to her progressive credentials. In time, it could be seen as a turning point in which Swarbricks political stock actually started falling.

Although it was a throwaway line, the use of the OK boomer meme does reflect a view of inequality and climate change through a generational lens. Some radicals and intellectuals on the left have pushed back strongly against this approach, pointing out that the problems of society arent going to be solved by millennials going to war with boomers.

They suggest Swarbricks approach is not only superficial, but dangerous and reductionist, obscuring some of the deeper and more important issues and divisions that are key to understanding whats wrong with New Zealand society.

Swarbrick is undoubtedly one of the more interesting politicians of the moment, and shes helping keep some progressive voters onside with a government that is otherwise disappointing them. Yet, she has said that she often considers leaving parliament, and she hasnt yet decided whether to stand again for election next year. If she remains, and the Greens stay in government, she will surely ascend to a ministerial position. That, of course, would be the true test of her radicalism.

If Swarbrick does step down, it will be another blow for those looking for more transformational or radical leadership than the Ardern-led Government is currently offering. Such expectations are probably unreasonable to put on a 25-year-old first-term MP. As Swarbrick has few actual achievements as a political leader to date, the expectations reflect more a view amongst progressives that the various Boomers and Gen-Xers making the big calls now including Ardern are not OK at all.

Bryce Edwards is a senior associate at the Institute for Governance and Policy Studies at Victoria University, Wellington

See the article here:
Chle Swarbrick is the voice of young progressives but can she stay the distance? - The Guardian