Archive for the ‘Progressives’ Category

Campus Free Speech — Progressives Intolerant of …

If there is one constant in the battles over free speech on campus, its this: Apologists for intolerance can rarely justify censorship without making stuff up. Confronted with the difficulty of justifying the actual facts of actual disruptions (and sometimes violence), they resort to defending the academy from enemies it doesnt have, upholding standards that arent under attack, and creating new standards they have no intention of using to benefit anyone but their friends.

I witnessed this countless times during my legal work defending the free-association rights of Christian college students. More than 100 universities in the United States have either thrown Christian groups off campus or attempted to toss groups from campus on the grounds that it is impermissible discrimination for Christian groups to reserve leadership positions for Christians. But rather than justify the actual facts of the actual case in front of them, campus officials would assert that if they dont uphold the campus nondiscrimination policy, then the university couldnt defend its students against...the Ku Klux Klan. Indeed, at Vanderbilt University, administrators directly compared Christian students seeking Christian leadership to segregationists from the Jim Crow South.

Yes, in the name of protecting students from hordes of sheet-clad night riders, the university was ejecting from campus student groups known mainly for playing lots of guitar, volunteering disproportionately at urban homeless shelters, and avoiding the binge-drinking hookup culture that was and is causing its own set of campus problems.

This misdirection was especially pronounced in the aftermath of the Middlebury College affair, in which gangs of students and outsiders disrupted Charles Murrays speech, chased him out to his car, physically attacked him, gave a Middlebury professor a concussion as she tried to defend him, and then tried to block Murrays car as he left.

But to read some commentators, one would think the protesters main problem was that they gave intolerance a bad name. Writing in praise of intolerance at Slate, author and James Madison University professor Alan Levinovitz, argues that the subsequent violent protests were wrong not because they were intolerant, but because they were an ineffective and immoral form of intolerance, especially in a civic space dedicated to reason and evidence.

RELATED: The Rioters Are Winning

And what are the effective and moral forms of intolerance? Well, here come the straw men. He speaks of creationists and anti-vaxxers two groups that are most definitely not trying to gain access to campus biology departments and then moves on to a direct and misguided attack on religious conservatism, condemning (of all people) C. S. Lewis for advocating that all economists and statesmen should be Christian and rank-and-file Christians who believe that God wants men to serve as the head of the household.

But heres the problem Levinovitz doesnt point to a single example where those kinds of Christian beliefs are at issue in any modern campus controversy. Even Christian professors who believe in male headship (a misunderstood belief that has exactly no relevance to campus politics) dont import that belief into their English or chemistry or mathematics lectures. One gets the feeling that to weed out or block alleged extremism that isnt a problem on campus, defenders of the status quo are happy limiting mainstream conservatives, especially mainstream religious conservatives.

Indeed, some writers are so entirely within their own ideological bubbles, it seems that they actually believe that the choice is a binary between the progressive monoculture and an extremist dystopia. Writing at The Ringer, a new and already-influential sports and pop-culture website, staff writer Kate Knibbs claims to have figured out what ideological diversity really means:

The phrase ideological diversity is a Trojan horse designed to help bring disparaged thought onto campuses, to the media, and into vogue. It is code for granting fringe right-wing thought more credence in communities that typically reject it, and nothing more.

This sentiment would be laughable if it werent so common. Theres reasonable, responsible progressivism and then there is the howling mob of extremists. But again, where is the serious effort at grappling with genuine censorship or with the plight of the actual people campus that progressives are trying to toss from campus?

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education maintains an active and expanding list of all known attempts to disinvite speakers from college campuses. Read it carefully. Yes, there are a few alt-right extremists on the list (theres a heavy concentration of recent attempts to block Milo Yiannopolous from speaking), but the overwhelming majority of the disinvited are not only thoroughly mainstream, many of them are even on the mainstream Left. Is Madeline Albright too triggering for todays students? How about Janet Napolitano?

Indeed, the very length and breadth of the list reveals the underlying intellectual bankruptcy of real-world attempts at virtuous intolerance. There is no limiting principle other than the subjective desires and (more importantly) the political power of the people making the demands. At the end of the day, its not about justice or standards or tolerance at all, its about who runs the place.

RELATED: If We Cant Unite Against Rioting, We Cant Unite at All

This weekend, I watched a fascinating twelve-minute documentary on the 2015 free-speech crisis at Yale. Youll remember it as the controversy in which students melted down because a professor had the audacity to write a polite e-mail declaring that adult students should have the liberty to choose their own Halloween costumes based on their own moral judgments. The documentary features students and even administrators using an interesting word to describe their university. They called it a home.

But whose home is it? Its becoming increasingly clear that the university is the place the Left calls home. And its not just the university. Progressive students can now leave one home in academia and immediately enter a new home in progressive corporate America. Conservatives (to the extent they exist) are the invited guests, expected to live by the hosts rules. Break those rules, and youll be asked to leave. And theyll justify your eviction no matter how kind, how intelligent, or how deferential you are as a sad necessity. We cant have those Christians on campus. The Klan might be next.

David French is a staff writer for National Review, a senior fellow at the National Review Institute, and an attorney.

View original post here:
Campus Free Speech -- Progressives Intolerant of ...

For 2018, Moderate Democrats Are Progressives’ Last Best Hope – Observer


Observer
For 2018, Moderate Democrats Are Progressives' Last Best Hope
Observer
One major problem that hamstrings progressives is the inability of too many on the left to think strategically. For example, on my Facebook feed this week, I saw quite a bit of commentary on the decision of Sen. Joe Donnelly to support the nomination ...

View post:
For 2018, Moderate Democrats Are Progressives' Last Best Hope - Observer

Progressives take on establishment Democrats at town halls – Washington Times

Progressives take on establishment Democrats at town halls
Washington Times
Those rowdy progressives shouting down Republicans at town-hall meetings are starting to train their sights on establishment Democrats. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, California Democrat, was booed when she refused to denounce U.S. airstrikes on Syria or ...

and more »

Excerpt from:
Progressives take on establishment Democrats at town halls - Washington Times

Jonathan P. Baird: The 1 percent owns the GOP, but progressives have the numbers to thwart their agenda – Concord Monitor

These are uneasy times for those of us on the liberal/progressive side. Donald Trumps win was a devastating blow with an avalanche of awful consequences. It is painful to contemplate all the harm that will ensue. Revolted at the prospect of four years of Trump, many liberals and progressives are mesmerized at the Russia collusion story and whether we are watching Watergate II, ending in President Mike Pence.

While the Trump show is perversely fascinating to watch, to focus there is to miss a deeper political picture. In spite of what has seemed like increasingly favorable population demographics, Democrats nationally have been getting beaten badly.

The White House aside, Republicans now dominate state governments. They control both chambers in 32 states, including 17 with veto-proof majorities. Democrats control the legislature in just 13 states. Only five of these chambers have veto-proof majorities. Republicans control the governors office in 33 states and Democrats control 16, with one state having an independent governor supported by the Democrats.

By any objective standard, the Republicans have had extraordinary success. They control all branches of the government. Nationally, during the Barack Obama presidency, the Democrats lost more than 900 state legislative seats.

Beyond just the numbers is the further reality that the far-right fringe has become a dominant faction in the Republican Party. The moderate Republican, denigrated as a Republican in Name Only, or RINO, is an endangered species. The Republican Party now aims to gut the government by wholesale elimination of federal programs, cutting taxes, removing regulation and shredding the safety net.

Democrats and progressives need to ask: How did we get to such a weak place? Reading the news and watching social media, you do not see much self-criticism or very deep analysis by still shell-shocked Democrats as to how and why we have gotten clobbered.

No one likes to air dirty laundry. Also there seems to be a compulsion to just keep doing what we have done, only do it harder. Rationalizations include: We were close, the Russians, Jim Comey, etc. The truth is that with the notable exception of the presidency of Obama, we have been getting our asses kicked in much of the country.

Most liberals or progressives dont have a good grasp of the scope or depth of what we are up against. The picture is hard to see and for a good reason: Much has been hidden from the public. Secrecy is part of the brilliance of the design.

The arch-conservative billionaires have been spending an almost limitless fortune for a generation to create what has been called a fully integrated network. In the aftermath of the Citizens United decision, this spending further accelerated. By joining forces, these billionaires have advanced an extreme strain of conservative politics which serves their bottom line, the public be damned.

New Yorker staff writer Jane Mayer exposes the extreme right-wing billionaire methodology and agenda in her brilliant book Dark Money.

A central part of this story is the role of Charles and David Koch, the infamous Koch brothers. Moving from the right-wing netherworld of the John Birch Society to the heart of the Republican Party, they have been key political operators in building what has been called the Kochtopus. They have subsidized think tanks, created academic programs, hired a flotilla of lobbyists, financed legal groups and advanced political front groups and operatives.

Using the guise of philanthropy and being ever mindful of secrecy, they have created a private political machine that Mayer correctly says threatens to subsume the Republican Party.

In doing this, they invented a right-wing universe of jobs and career opportunities for their wannabees: Think Heritage Foundation, Cato Institute, Federalist Society, Americans for Prosperity, State Policy Network, Foundation for Government Accountability and the American Legislative Exchange Council and that is just for starters.

Of course, the Kochs did not build this remarkable structure alone. Other hugely wealthy people have been on board. Mayer names, among others, Robert Mercer, a hedge fund billionaire; Richard Mellon Scaife, an heir to the Mellon banking and Gulf oil fortunes; Henry and Lynde Bradley, who made a fortune through defense contracts; John C. Olin, a chemical and munitions firm owner; the Coors family of Colorado brewers; and the DeVos family, founders of Amway.

Together, over a period of almost 50 years, they have raised billions of dollars toward their goal of an America modeled on the Gilded Age before the FDR presidency. They aim to dismantle every safety net and government program created for workers, the elderly, the poor, the disabled and the environment while obliterating all campaign finance law. These folks think big. Their vision is rapacious social Darwinism, a you-are-on-your-own society with greed as the highest value.

Doubters might consider the current example of environmental protection and the evisceration of the EPA. As Mayer points out, coal, oil and gas companies form the nucleus of the Koch donor network. These companies are major funders of the campaign to deny scientific findings about global warming. It is no accident Trump picked Scott Pruitt, a notorious climate change denier, to head the EPA. That was a gift to the Koch brothers and the fossil fuel industry. Through funding cuts and the elimination of programs, the EPA is being reduced to a shell of its former self.

Duplicate that model throughout the whole government and you will have an idea what the Kochs and their allies are up to.

The Democrats have their billionaires, too such as George Soros and Tom Steyer but the sides are not symmetrical. The overwhelming billionaire money is on the Republican side, and it has long been that way.

The Republicans represent the billionaire class and that class does not need two political parties to represent it. The Democrats cannot compete when it comes to collecting billionaire funders and they would be barking up the wrong tree even to try. In this area, the campaign of Bernie Sanders pointed in the right direction.

So what are liberals and progressives to do?

To use the immortal words of Joe Hill: Dont mourn, organize! It is the 99 percent against the 1 percent. They have the money but potentially we have the numbers. We can learn from the systematic, long-term perspective and institution-building adopted by the Kochs. They dont quit when they lose. Politics is a lifelong engagement. The fact that we have been beaten badly should be seen as just one round in a 15-round bout.

All the money in the world does not change the fact that the Kochs and their Republican allies are wedded to a selfish vision of oligarchy that will ultimately immiserate the majority of Americans while being an environmental time bomb for the planet.

Liberals and progressives can come back. The womens marches show both the energy and the enthusiasm are there. Progressives need to do better in speaking respectfully and empathetically to all kinds of people outside their enclaves.

The superiority of the progressive vision is that it can speak to the needs and humanity of all Americans.

(Jonathan P. Baird of Wilmot works at the Social Security Administration. His column reflects his own views and not those of his employer.)

Originally posted here:
Jonathan P. Baird: The 1 percent owns the GOP, but progressives have the numbers to thwart their agenda - Concord Monitor

Michael Moore Explains Why Trump’s Presidency Is a Golden Opportunity for Progressives – AlterNet


AlterNet
Michael Moore Explains Why Trump's Presidency Is a Golden Opportunity for Progressives
AlterNet
Filmmaker Michael Moore told NPR this week that he talks with lots of Trump voters and he believes that many of them can be flipped to vote for a progressive candidate who has the right message. In an interview on NPR's Indivisible podcast, Moore ...

and more »

More:
Michael Moore Explains Why Trump's Presidency Is a Golden Opportunity for Progressives - AlterNet