Archive for the ‘Progressives’ Category

‘Vox’ Wants Progressives To Support Free Speech For The Wrong Reasons – Reason

Across the nation, college administrators are cracking down on pro-Palestenian speech. In Texas, police violently broke up peaceful protests, and one college even reportedly told students that they couldn't use the phrases "Israel," "Zionism," or chant in Arabic. At Brandeis University, police shut down a pro-Palestine protest because its president said it had "devolved into the invocation of hate speech."

While progressives have tended to support campus censorship efforts in recent years, an article in Vox by writer Eric Levitz argues that the left should embrace free speechand that its push to censor speech in the name of inclusion and social justice was misguided.

"Should students concerned with social justice rethink their previous skepticism of free speech norms, for the sake of better protecting radical dissent? I think the answer is yes." wrote Levitz. "There is reason to believe that progressives would be better equipped to resist the present crackdown on pro-Palestinian advocacy had social justice activists not previously popularized an expansive conception of harmful speech."

Levitz's article also argues that rejecting censorship could lead the left to find more allies when their ideas are on the chopping block.

"In a world where right-of-center intellectuals had more cause for believing that their defense of leftists' free expression would be reciprocated," Levitz wrote, "it seems plausible that opposition to the Antisemitism Awareness Act might be a bit more widespread and its prospects for clearing the Senate somewhat dimmer."

While Levitz's piece is refreshing, its support for free speech isn't about adopting a new appreciation for the principles of free expression, regardless of political viewpoint. It's about adopting the best policies to protect left-wing ideas.

Save several paragraphs reminding progressives that debate is necessary for finding the truth and that "the more insulated any ideological orthodoxy is from critique, the more vulnerable it will be to persistent errors," Levitz's argument is pragmatic in nature. He spends most of the piececorrectlyarguing that if progressives had been willing to take a stand against censorship of right-wing beliefs, the current norms allowing for the censorship of pro-Palestine activists would not have been set in place.

However, if your reason to defend speech is purely practical and self-interested, it becomes much easier to indulge in exceptions to your free speech principles. Surely, allowing the censorship of the most offensive, unproductive viewpoints couldn't be used to justify the suppression of your own, much better, ideas, right?

Levitz even hints at such exceptions. "If adopting a permissive attitude toward campus speech entailed significant costs to progressive causes, then doing so might be unwise," he wrote, later adding, "Defending free speech and standing up for the disempowered may sometimes be competing objectives."

When your defense of free speech comes from a core, universal principle, calls for censorship are unthinkable. This is why, for example, it's so frustrating to see Levitz group the First Amendment nonprofit the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) with a long list of "conservatives" who have spoken out against censorship of pro-Palestinian activism.

FIREand everyone else smeared as "conservative" for standing up against censorshipdoesn't begrudgingly defend left-wing speech so that right-wing speech will stay protectedthey're a nonpartisan organization that defends First Amendment rights because they believe fiercely in the importance of free speech.

Perhaps the biggest flaw is that Levitz's piece still doesn't make the core realization that there can be true, principled, defenders of free speechthose who truly think a nation with more ideas and more voices, even offensive ones, is better than one with fewer. Instead, he sees speech protections as a kind of truce, a decision from both the left and right to leave each other alone so they can both best further their political goals.

We would have a better, more functional world if more peopleleft or rightwere willing to passionately defend the free speech rights of those with whom they disagree. However, getting to that world requires that people let go of the idea that censorship is ever a good idea, not merely that it's impractical.

More here:
'Vox' Wants Progressives To Support Free Speech For The Wrong Reasons - Reason

Nellie Bowles book: Who are the ‘New Progressives’? – Deseret News

In college, Nellie Bowles looked up writers she saw on the front page of The New York Times to deconstruct their career paths to success; she repeated in front of the mirror: Hi, its Nellie Bowles, with The New York Times. She got the coveted job in 2017, writing stories about business and tech, and threw herself into the Times culture, going to happy hours with colleagues and working weekends. But around 2020, in the height of the pandemic, and in the aftermath of George Floyds murder and the Black Lives Matter movement, something started to shift.

In her new book Morning After the Revolution: Dispatches from the Wrong Side of History, Bowles documents that shift in her observations of the progressive left and its policies, which she believes went radically astray.

Its the New Progressive at the center of the movement she writes about. (The term woke is too laden with baggage now, she told me, and feels dated, stale, clumsy, and also too politicized.)

It was a new era, she writes. Liberals those weak, wishy-washy compromisers, the hemmers and hawers were out. Washing them away was the New Progressive.

In the book, Bowles tells the stories she wasnt allowed to tell at the Times: She writes, for example, about Seattles Capitol Hill neighborhood, which transformed into a police-free autonomous zone, or CHAZ, Antifa protests, and the experience of attending an anti-racism training called The Toxic Trends of Whiteness.

Bowles, 36, is a sarcastic and humorous observer, whose tone nods to the excesses and absurdity of these progressive efforts. The ideology that came shrieking in would go on to reshape America in some ways that are interesting and even good, and in other ways that are appalling, but mostly in ways that are I hate to say it funny, she writes in the book.

The New York Times reviewed the book, calling it sneering, and saying the journalist Nellie Bowles relies more on sarcasm than argument or ideas.

After leaving the Times in 2021, Bowles joined The Free Press, a new media company founded by Bari Weiss, who resigned from The New York Times in 2020 with a public letter, citing that she was the subject of constant bullying and was openly demeaned on company-wide Slack channels. At The Free Press, Bowles is the head of strategy and writes a weekly humor column called TGIF.

Bowles, who is expecting her second child, spoke to Deseret from her home in Los Angeles. The interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Deseret News: When did you first start questioning your own views about the response to the events of 2020 and their aftermath?

Nellie Bowles: I never much questioned my place in the mainstream media. I was a successful young reporter at the Times. I was doing stories I really cared about and loved writing. I was having fun. I was doing send-ups of silly Silicon Valley trends, or cool Silicon Valley trends or political figures. It was all pretty natural how life was unfolding.

For me, as 2019 came, and then 2020, the areas of acceptable curiosity started to narrow. And suddenly a movement that had been kind of a fringe movement that you could ignore, or be part of without it taking over your life, announced itself all of a sudden very loudly. For instance, NPR put out a statement in 2020, saying that they were not covering the Hunter Biden laptop story, because its a non-story. Adolescent gender dysphoria or COVID origins some of the most interesting topics in America were other stories you were not supposed to report on or (you had to) align your reporting with the dominant narratives of the day.

The personality traits of a good journalist, like being suspicious, objective or the belief in the idea that the truth is hard they were off the table. Within the mainstream, many, many very interesting topics became out of bounds. Thats just really hard for any curious person. That was the shift that I managed to get in a lot of trouble with.

DN: How did the revolution and its ideas spread at The New York Times?

NB: I think the revolution thats happened in the mainstream American press has been bottom up, not top down. Its not that the bosses of the newspapers and the magazines sat down and said, Were going to clamp down on the curious reporters. It tended to be newer and younger staff who didnt come into journalism to do the traditional news stuff. They came to be a tool of the revolution and of social change; they were on a mission. We had situations at the Times where in all-company, 3000-person Slack rooms, a Wirecutter editor would go after a top political reporter. Thats how it entered the bloodstream.

This was happening with a lot of different publications, and this is whats happening now with American universities. I dont think the presidents of these universities are ideologues in general its a bottom-up revolution.

DN: In one of the chapters that stood out the most to me, you recount what happened in an anti-racism training course. What did you expect going into it and what surprised you?

NB: Going into it, I knew some of the rhetoric I was going to see, but I was surprised by what I saw and how much it impacted me. In the book, I try to trace how anti-racist work went from being something that happens externally something that happens by doing activism to change laws to something that happens internally. It becomes more of a therapeutic anti-racism, where its all about dismantling whiteness inside yourself, dismantling your white traits, and those are defined as things such as perfectionism and urgency. To some extent, its anti-action. It says, dont try to improve tangible things like laws and impose your white values on society.

When I dove into this therapeutic work, I was surprised how deeply I felt it all as an outsider, who went in skeptical. I dont know if the result is good or bad or if it improves the lives for people of color in America, but it was powerful there is a reason why Robin DiAngelos book White Fragility was so popular. The therapeutic model of anti-racism tells you that the most important thing that you can do to fight racism in America is to fight your own perfectionism and to stop trying so hard.

Thats a really different way of thinking about improving the world. And I dont totally believe that. I think we can actually make quite a lot of change through the old-world style of activism and the old liberal values-type activism.

DN: You write about the failure of San Francisco, where you grew up. How did San Francisco contribute to your disillusionment with progressive policies?

NB: Being at The New York Times definitely opened my eyes to this movement, but it was really seeing San Francisco and being a local there that made me see that sometimes beautiful ideas can have results that are the opposite of what you intended. Being a San Franciscan over the last decade has been a humbling experience. It made me less sure of my politics and my belief system.

You see the city and you realize, maybe harm-reduction approaches dont work, because youre walking past someone whos dying on the sidewalk. How is it that this beautiful philosophy is not connected to a beautiful end result? Dont get me wrong the city itself is gorgeous, but the soaring fentanyl deaths make you have to wrestle with reality if youre living in San Francisco. And there is no one to blame but your own ideas. Everyone in San Francisco is a progressive, so there is no outsider you can point to and say, They did this.

I find that the best way to start a conversation with people who disagree with you politically; there is debate on how to achieve the outcome, how to achieve less racist policing and fewer people dying on the streets of fentanyl. There is debate on how to get there, but we all want the same thing. But in the last couple of years, there is much more of a consensus actually in San Francisco. I would say the moderates have won.

DN: Some would say the progressive movement has peaked. What do you think this movement might look like in the future?

NB: The book is called The Morning After the Revolution because I think the heat of the moment, the heat of the revolution has passed. Even though there is unrest on college campuses, its not the tens of thousands of people you saw marching before. I think (the progressive ideology) basically became institutionalized, the values of the moment are now woven into corporate America, theyre woven into academic America, theyre woven into our institutions. So it doesnt need to be as loud, it doesnt need to announce itself with screams and fire. Its just taken for granted now.

Thats the shift the movement won. The book grapples with what it is that won exactly, and also why? I hope and try in the book to show the appeal of a lot of these moments, the appeal of the anti-racism training, the appeal of even a group like Antifa, the group that introduces elements of violence into protests. I dont think you can understand our current moment without acknowledging that these things were appealing for a reason.

DN: Is there a future for free-thinking journalists in the mainstream media?

NB: Im optimistic. There are various new media companies that are cropping up now, like The Free Press, that are trying to fill this new void. I also think through the creation of new institutions and their success the old institutions will start to course-correct. There is an appetite and hunger. Most Americans dont have really perfectly aligned politics with one party or another. Most Americans are kind of messy and believe a little bit of this and a little bit of that. Most people dont want to be shoved in a little partisan box, and thats really a good thing about Americans. And it says a lot about our miserable partisan boxes and how constrained they are.

I mean, people also like red meat and their op-eds about how Donald Trump is the end of the world for the thousandth time. But there is interest in complexity. It turns out that there are a lot of people who want something thats between the NPR and the Daily Wire, and that offers a little more surprise and that offers a little more complexity to the world than those two places. Thats been heartening and exciting.

Read more:
Nellie Bowles book: Who are the 'New Progressives'? - Deseret News

John Fetterman will speak at Florida Democratic Party gala. Progressives want it cancelled. – The Philadelphia Inquirer

Sen. John Fetterman is being hosted by the Florida Democratic Party this weekend, but a group of Sunshine State progressives arent happy about it.

Fetterman (D., Pa.) will deliver the keynote speech for a Saturday gala at Disneys Contemporary Resort in Lake Buena Vista as part of the Florida partys weekend-long Leadership Blue conference its most important fundraiser of the year.

The Pennsylvania senator has been unflinching in his support of Israel since Hamas militants raided the country, killing around 1,200 people and abducting about 250 hostages. But his support has drawn ire from activists angered by Israels war in Gaza, which has killed more than 34,000 Palestinians and displaced about 80% of Gazas population.

The Florida Democratic Progressive Caucus, a group within the states Democratic Party, called for Fettermans speech to be cancelled because of his unwavering support for Israels actions, according to a Wednesday letter shared on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter, by The Bulwark reporter Marc Caputo.

Florida Democratic Party Chair Nikki Fried said Fettermans 2022 victory against Republican Mehmet Oz, a celebrity doctor, can serve as a blueprint for the Senate race in Florida this year, in a Tuesday announcement about his speech.

Senator John Fetterman is not your traditional politician, Fried said. He is a powerful voice for the Democratic Party and embodies the spirit of Florida Democrats never backing down from a fight.

In their letter, members of the progressive caucus argued that it would be a direct affront to the principles of democracy and justice to platform Fetterman, who they accuse of abandoning progressive values and using divisive rhetoric.

John Fetterman, once touted as a progressive champion, has betrayed the trust of his constituents by swiftly pivoting away from the platform he was elected on, the letter said. His recent statements and actions, particularly regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, stand in stark contrast to the values of equality, justice, and peace that his supporters stand for.

Fetterman has been viewed as casting aside his progressivism through his support of Israel, but he said in an interview earlier this year that he has been open about not being a progressive. He called himself a progressive prior to his 2022 swing-state Senate bid, but described himself as just a Democrat on the campaign trail.

READ MORE: Progressives say John Fetterman has abandoned them. But he says he hasnt changed.

Like the Florida party chair, Fetterman views his visit in context of the election this year.

I fully embrace a diversity of views within the Democratic party but were 6 months out from the presidential race, and weve got to be united on reelecting Joe Biden, he said in a statement this week regarding the letter. The stakes are too high. Just this week in Florida, weve got an abortion ban going into effect. We cant let these disagreements lead to a second Trump term.

The Inquirer reached out to the Florida Democratic Party for comment about the letter and is awaiting a response.

The rest is here:
John Fetterman will speak at Florida Democratic Party gala. Progressives want it cancelled. - The Philadelphia Inquirer

Opinion | The progressives won again – Alabama Political Reporter

A bunch of California liberals invaded Alabama on Thursday.

Meta, the parent company of Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp, announced during a ceremony at Montgomerys white water park that it would be building an $800 million data center in Alabamas capitol city. They will bring at least 100 permanent jobs and thousands of construction jobs.

The announcement was celebrated by city and state leaders. Gov. Kay Ivey said she was proud to accept Metas friend request.

Get it? Haha. Friend request.

This is Metas second data center in Alabama. Theres also a $750 million data center in Huntsville. Ivey mentioned it as well, as she raved about the relationship between the company and the state of Alabama.

Which raises one question: Was the hypocrisy of an entire legislative session, or two, apparent to anyone else who watched this press conference?

Im sorry, did we not just spend an entire session bemoaning and demeaning DEI? Did we not just spend two sessions barring the state from doing business with companies that believe in ESG?

Did we not have a secretary of state throw a phony hissy fit over the CEO of Meta, Mark Zuckerberg, offering up money to cover the costs of conducting safe and fair elections during the pandemic?

Did I dream these things?

Or are we once again witnessing the hypocritical results of Alabama political theater the same play thats been running for 200 years, in which the elected elites pit the poor whites against the minorities by conjuring up a make-believe advantage thats going to the minorities.

This year, it was DEI.

Oh, the unfairness of diversity, equity and inclusion. How dare companies, governments, universities or anyone seek to create a diverse workforce by setting racial hiring quotas, said the people who have benefited since the beginning of time from racial hiring practices.

So, the state of Alabama went on the attack over the last few months. The legislature passed a bill banning DEI programs at state universities. Lawmakers have kicked around the idea of banning state dollars going to recruit companies that have DEI programs.

And yet, right there on the Meta website is a whole lengthy page praising the companys DEI program and discussing the importance of diversity, equity and inclusion.

But it gets even worse.

Another page on the Meta website talks up the companys devotion to gasp! environmental, social and governance standards. ESG!

Essentially, ESG is a scorecard for how well companies do at maintaining good environmental practices. It encourages companies to invest in sustainability by being more selective with who they do business with specifically, prioritizing companies that are more environmentally conscious.

Just last June, Ivey signed into law and praised a bill barring the state from doing business with companies that practice ESG.

No matter how much Corporate America and the national media want to push their social issue of the day on folks, the state of Alabama will continue protecting both our values and our businesses, Ivey said after signing the bill.

But on Thursday, Iveys office put out a press release praising the Meta data center, and it, oddly, noted this: Once operational, the facility will be LEED Gold certified by the U.S. Green Building Council.

It will be supported by 100 percent renewable energy and reach net zero emissions. Metas sustainability practices have generated investments in renewable energy projects, and it has also supported Huntsville area schools and educational organizations with over 85 grants and sponsorships exceeding $4.2 million since 2019.

The Meta website also lists a variety of reports on its ESG efforts.

Im so confused. I thought DEI and ESG were awful, discriminatory practices that unfairly limited the job opportunities of white people and unfairly prevented companies who are destroying natural resources from doing business?

Did I miss a news conference where we decided all of that was OK? Or was Ivey holding that shovel to beat those California libs back to ESG-land?

Or and hear me out here are Alabama conservative lawmakers nothing more than play actors bouncing from phony outrage to phony outrage in an effort to hide the fact that they have zero actual policy ideas, no plans for economic development in todays world and hope desperately that youre dumb enough to always fall for these race-based, ignorant schemes?

Thank God this state has a few decent, progressive mayors like Montgomerys Steven Reed. Its no wonder that his town is No. 1 in economic development in the state, or that the top five cities are all increasingly progressive outliers in this bastion of MAGA-dom.

The fact is global companies, like Meta, dont want to be associated with backwards, regressive bigoted governments. They know that the pathway to success in todays business world is to embrace diversity and seek to leave the planet better than you found it. Its what investors want. Its what top employees want.

And I know for a fact thats exactly what Reed and the folks in Montgomery pitched. It has become a standard for them, showing would-be relocating companies that Montgomery is different, carries different values, believes in different things and is far more progressive than much of the rest of Alabama. It worked again.

The Meta announcement on Thursday was wonderful news for the state, and particularly for the folks in Montgomery. If it goes the way of the Huntsville location, it will grow and benefit the entire region for years to come.

Thankfully, there were enough progressives around to make it happen.

Read the original post:
Opinion | The progressives won again - Alabama Political Reporter

Kennedy: Biden’s In A Bit Of A Pickle With Progressives In His Party Right Now – FOX News Radio

Host of the Kennedy Saves the World podcast Kennedy joins Fox Across America With Jimmy Failla to share her thoughts on why President Biden has not been more direct in his criticism of the antisemitic demonstrations taking place on college campuses throughout the country.

Michigan. Thats the only reason this president has been so late to condemn this stuff. Its just Michigan. Its nothing else. Because there are a lot of liberal Jewish voters in this country who despise the Republican Party, even though the left is now being gobbled whole by anti-Semitic progressives. You know, he shouldnt be in a Morally, this should be a layup for him, but hes bad at politics. Hes terrified. He doesnt have any instincts anymore because he doesnt have any motor skills anymore. And they sort of decline hand in hand.

Jimmy and Kennedy also discuss the protests that took place near the Met Gala in New York City earlier this week. Listen to the podcast to hear everything they discussed!

Read more from the original source:
Kennedy: Biden's In A Bit Of A Pickle With Progressives In His Party Right Now - FOX News Radio