Mediaboss Marketing

In politics, framing is the attempt to alter reality by selecting words, slogans and tropes that convince the public to see the other side in a certain negative way. As Robert Entman explains, Toframeis toselect some aspects of a perceived reality and make them more salient in a communicating text, in such a way as to promote a particular problem definition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation, and/or treatment recommendationfor the item described.

Framing is choosing the language, the words, the tropes that will produce the most lasting image in the minds of voters.

Everybody frames everybody with whom they disagree. Evangelicals frame progressives as demons; progressives frame evangelicals as dummies.

Google Democrats as devils, and the web blows up. Headlines scream: Its Almost Official: The Democrats Are the Party of the Devil; The Democratic Party is Satanic, Literally!; Devilfor theDemocrats?; Its all in the details;Its official: theDemocratsare the party of theDevil; The Democrats Are Evil; Democrats Have Become the Partyof Satan. A cursory search produced more than 50 articles insisting that Democrats are devils.

The arguments of the Democrats are devils trope are working. Here are representative samples of the bombarding of the public with the major trope:

Evangelicals, on the other hand, have been framed by liberals as dupes, dummies, backward hillbillies, rednecks, racists and ignorant. The primary pathos of liberal persuasion is shaming. Civil virtue has shamed evangelicals for not supporting gay marriage or feminism.

Shame is a primary liberal pedagogy. Since framing is an attempt at persuasion, it always intensifies what is perceived as the weakness of evangelicals and exaggerates those perceived weaknesses to the maximum.

Shame is a primary liberal pedagogy.

American historian David Blight says, Liberals sometimes invite scorn with their devotion to diversity training and insistence on fighting over words rather than genuine inequality.

Evangelicals, in other words, have reasons for deeming progressives as elitist and hypocritical. In the court of public opinion, perhaps it is hard to discern if liberal framing of evangelicals has stuck.

George Lakoff, in The Political Mind, says progressives have been framed by conservative rhetoric that is deeply emotional and has powerful appeal for voters. Polls show that Americans support Roe v. Wade by large margins. But in conservative framing, abortion is still the go-to issue to show that Democrats and progressive Christians are undermining morality.

Likewise, 70% of Americans support same-sex marriage and 67% of Americans believe in evolution. Even 68% of Republicans support alternative energy development. Yet Republicans continue to win elections by opposing the issues that the majority of the nation supports. The frame job has worked.

Whereas once American Christians lived in the Methodist frame, the Baptist frame, the Episcopal frame, the Catholic frame, the Lutheran frame, or the Presbyterian frame, now conservatives have framed progressives as non-Christians. This has nothing to do with the affirmation of all these mainline Christians of the Apostles Creed. They are framed as non-Christian because of their positions on abortion, marriage and gender.

Now conservatives have framed progressives as non-Christians.

The valedictorian of the progressive Christians are devils class is Robert Jeffress of First Baptist Church in Dallas. Jeffress has framed all Democrats with the charge of paganism: Well, apparently the god they worship is the pagan god of the Old Testament Moloch, who allowed for child sacrifice. The god of the Bible doesnt sanction the killing of millions and millions of children in the womb, I think the god they are worshiping is the god of their own imagination.

Jeffress has called Democrats a godless party and said the God (Democrats) talk about is not the God of the Bible. It is the God of their imagination a God who loves abortion and hates Israel, whereas the true God that most Jews and Christians are familiar with is a God who hates abortion and loves Israel.

No one likes to be shamed, but shame is the primary product of the liberal frame job. Eve Sedgwick asks: Can anyone suppose that well ever figure out what happened around political correctness if we dont see it as, among other things, a highly politicized chain reaction of shame dynamics?

Political correctness becomes a pedagogy, a sweeping masterwork of shame designed to rip residual structures of degradation from speech.

Evangelicals often are confused when people lose jobs because of the use of politically incorrect language. They think they are making jokes, but when shamed by the new civil virtues of acceptance and diversity, they fight back. People get shamed, or lose their jobs, for example, when they believe theyre just having a little fun making fun.

The evangelical angst revolves into a mantra: I feel unfree. It would be cavalier to deny these are legitimate feelings. Evangelicals feel they are being denied freedom of speech.

In the court of public opinion, the evangelical trope seems to stick to progressives; the progressive trope doesnt stick to evangelicals as well.

Democrats and progressives have been framed, and the jury has returned the verdict and found them guilty as charged not on the evidence but on the emotional appeals of the conservative testimonials.

Democrats and progressives have been framed, and the jury has returned the verdict and found them guilty as charged not on the evidence but on the emotional appeals of the conservative testimonials.

In Will Campbells novella, Cecelias Sin, a group of Anabaptists face execution for their faith. The night before their anticipated arrest, they discuss that the authorities claimed they were communists. Goris tries to help Peter understand that it doesnt matter that the charge of communism is false. But they believe we are communist, Goris said. And that is enough. If they think we are seditious, we are seditious. That is what sedition is. It is what they say it is.

No progress can be made in understanding the conservative appeal until we grasp that its about emotional arguments. Facts, truth, reality, policies evaporate like morning dew; emotions of rage, outrage and moral indignation stick like Velcro. The right-wing mantra possesses contagious feelings.

People catch feelings as easily as the common cold. Affect leaps from one body to another, evoking tenderness, inciting shame, igniting rage, exciting fear. Feelings not only spread, they stick, according to Sara Ahmed in The Cultural Politics of Emotion.

When these ancient feelings were attacked by a new civic virtue that promoted diversity, acceptance and a new ethical consciousness, conservative thoughts were dislodged and became unstuck. What has followed has been a furious denial of culpability.

The old evangelical paradigm, like a giant white egg, developed cracks and fractures, and panic ensued. The new pedagogy of antiracism, gender emancipation, queer emancipation, new horizons of political enfranchisement turned evangelicals into rebellious students unwilling to be taught by others. Confronted by new ethical paradigms designed to make persons more hospitable, more open, more sensitive, more thoughtful, more moral, evangelicals reverted to the old paradigms and attempted to patch the fractures and cracks.

Perhaps this explains the desperate attempts to revise American history and oppose science in the classroom. The epistemic foundations of evangelical faith are coming loose. Instead of claiming that evangelicals are resentful, Lawrence Grossberg says we should examine the terror of the humiliation of being a victim. One avoids the humiliation of loss and victimage by humiliating the other, by diminishing their status and capacity, destroying their sense of pride, reducing them to a lower state of being. Therefore, evangelicals have intensified attacks on gays, women, transgender persons, immigrants, scientists, historians, liberals. They have framed everyone as devils and demons.

The evangelical feeling machine delivers a constant flow of emotional frames.

The evangelical feeling machine delivers a constant flow of emotional frames. Like a chocolate fountain at a wedding reception, evangelical emotions pour forth to the public feelings, feelings and more feelings. What underscores evangelical argument is emotion.

Progressives, on the other hand, mistrust emotion and at times make fun of emotional arguments as if Aristotle didnt insist on its persuasive power. Progressives can come across as austere, thick-minded, stubborn and insistent on not exhibiting feelings. In place of emotional frames, progressives tend to use intellectual, scholarly, elitist frames.

Progressives are seen as the ones taking away the nation, taking away morals, history and the future. Conservatives insist they are the ones aligned with freedom and rights. They claim they are protecting the nation. Evangelicals feel justified in these claims when they think progressives are no longer taking the Bible seriously. Progressives would be better served by attempting to understand the evangelical frames.

What can progressives do? Perhaps the first move would be to stop playing the frame game. Instead of depicting evangelicals as enemies, return to seeking any possible common ground. Failing to find such an ideal place to stand, at least surrender the language of framing that labels evangelicals as dummies and rednecks.

Admit that conservatives have successfully won the framing war and progressives have failed. Then, develop and articulate a moral vision for the future of democracy. Instead of embracing conservative frames, progressives must construct their own frames. Stop pretending that conservative, evangelical morality is anything other than self-righteous moralism. Insist that the civic morality of acceptance comes far closer to the practice of Jesus than that of evangelicals. Defend democracys anchor institutions. And maintain professional ethics while refusing to buy the lie of the devil that Gods work can be accomplished with the devils means.

Admit that conservatives have successfully won the framing war and progressives have failed.

Progressives should stop trying to use conservative frames and instead use their own language: empathy, compassion, truth, hope, justice, grace, mercy, righteousness. Stop being afraid of emotional arguments. Frame arguments with legitimate emotional appeals. Always speak from moral vision. Progressive policies follow from the morality of empathy and hospitality.

Instead of dismissing evangelical arguments, do a deep dive into the abyss and learn to understand the power of the frame job that has turned progressives into devils. Be able to explain why conservatives believe what they believe without making fun of what they believe.

The great challenge for progressives is to keep the arguments from spiraling out of control into hateful, resentful emptiness. Kenneth Burke argues: The process of human enlightenment can go no further than in picturing people not as vicious, but as mistaken.

If evangelicals would speak of progressives as misguided instead of as devils, perhaps a small crack would occur in the door to make possible renewed conversations with one another.

It is time to break out of the cycle of framing, blaming and judging.

Rodney W. Kennedycurrently serves as interim pastor of Emmanuel Freiden Federated Church in Schenectady, N.Y., and as preaching instructor Palmer Theological Seminary. He is the author of nine books, including the newly releasedThe Immaculate Mistake,about how evangelical Christians gave birth to Donald Trump.

Related articles:

Progressives have a problem telling their story | Analysis by Rodney Kennedy

The Trump Card: How white evangelicals are being played| by Joel Bowman Sr.

Understanding the evangelical civil war| Analysis by Alan Bean

Excerpt from:
The futility of framing one another as progressives and evangelicals, devils and dummies - Baptist News Global

Rep. Ritchie Torres (photo: Jeff Reed/City Council)

As congressional representatives seek re-election this year, there is one member of Congress who doesnt need to worry about having an opponent: Rep. Ritchie Torres. At the time of this writing, there is no word of a candidate circulating petitions to challenge Torres in this Junes Democratic primary. As political insiders well know, it is rare for an incumbent in New York not to have a challenge.

Many may have taken notice of Torress popularity in his congressional district, as is evident in this Data for Progress poll. According to the poll, Torres enjoys a 73% favorability rate in the 15th Congressional District.

The rise of Ritchie Torres is one that I foresaw in these pages some years ago. I believe the rest of the country will continue to share our New York experience of Torres as a thoughtful legislator who has an uncanny ability to dig through complex policy issues and who articulates his positions clearly and concisely.

Equally fascinating to me has been Torres political philosophy since 2013, a posture of pragmatic progressivism. The pragmatic part of this posture has earned Torres the scorn of some other progressives.

Contemporary political progressivism in the United States has several variants. The current trajectory of progressive politics can perhaps be distinguished between those on the socialist left and those on the liberal left, who consider themselves more pragmatic.

By pragmatic I am not referring to the philosophical school of thought of pragmatism made popular by the likes of William James and John Dewey in the 20th century. Rather, I refer to pragmatic as an electoral and governing approach to politics that seeks to achieve social ends through the most practical means possible.

These two distinguishing markers of political progressivismthe socialist left and the liberal left are hardly a recent phenomenon. Since the 20th century, progressive politics has been quite diverse. Interestingly enough, the socialist left once had a similar influence in New York and national politics to what it has now, though the impact is perhaps a bit greater now if we consider the number of socialists that are being elected to local office. The recent electoral successes of socialists are due to their intentional efforts to work within the Democratic Party instead of functioning as a third party as they did decades ago.

Perhaps the most prominent and influential socialist figure in 1930s electoral politics was Norman Thomas, a member of the Socialist Party of America. Thomas charm, charisma, and intellect helped to catapult the socialist agenda into the national political discourse.

Yet this socialist influence began to wane with the social progress achieved through FDRs New Deal initiatives. What replaced it for the next few decades was the influence of the liberal left.

What has been deemed liberal left I call pragmatic progressivism. And it is in this wing of progressive politics that Ritchie Torres resides. Pragmatic progressives seek most of the same goals as other progressives: universal healthcare, adequate funding for education and housing, fair wages, among others. The pragmatic element in this type of progressivism acknowledges that to function, politics must maintain a healthy equilibrium between competing interests.

The key difference between the socialist left and pragmatic progressives lies in the paths they take to achieve progressive aims. Pragmatists assert that the attainment of progressive goals may entail negotiating with those competing interests that are at different points along the political spectrum. Therefore, pragmatists make no bones about the fact that they must work within an imperfect and indeed broken system full of people with different opinions and constituencies that make these negotiations necessary. Pragmatists see these negotiations as necessary for the work of progress.

If Norman Thomas was the face of the socialist politics that preceded current socialist movements, like the contemporary Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), then the theologian and ethicist Reinhold Niebuhr, in the same era, represented the pragmatic progressivism exemplified today by Ritchie Torres.

In the 1930s, Niebuhr was part of the Socialists of America party and even ran for office twice on their ballot. The realities of World War II and the social and economic impact of FDRs New Deal changed his politics, leading him eventually to co-found New Yorks Liberal Party and later the Union for Democratic Action, which eventually became the Americans for Democratic Action. Niebuhr understood that the seeking of political perfection was far from realistic; therefore the necessity to seek compromise. He believed that the idealism of the socialist left, as was evident by their propensity to clamor for pacifictic alternatives during World War II, was indeed an attempt to seek the perfect. Yet, Niebuhr would assert that the perfect cant be the enemy of the very good.

Torres reflects in word and deed the type of progressive politics espoused by Niebuhrseeking progressive goals by balancing realities of politics and governance.

When have we seen Rep. Torres inclination toward this kind of pragmatic progressivism? Lets take a look at his stance on the Defund the Police movement prominently espoused by those on the socialist left. Speaking to Jose Diaz-Balart on MSNBC last month, Torres said, ...any elected official whos advocating for the abolition and/or even the defunding of police is out of touch with reality and should not be taken seriously. Torres prefers to speak of a reform the police type of movement, one that acknowledges the necessity of policing for ensuring public safety while acknowledging also that there are structural deficiencies within police departments that need deep and sustained reform. Torres says, What most New Yorkers want is not less policing or more police, but better policing more accountable and transparent policing.

Perhaps this stance of Torress points to his inclination to work within a broken system in order to seek necessary changes from within rather than seeking a total abolition of a system that doesnt work for many, particularly for communities of color. Hence, Torres has developed positions and backed legislation that seek to attack root causes of crime like poverty and housing instability, and pursues policies to address them.

Torres position on the Defund the Police movement and his penchant for reforming systems from within deficient structures could perhaps be seen in a police reform bill fight in 2017, during his tenure in the New York City Council.

The 2017 Right to Know Act, a controversial and much-debated set of police reform bills, sought to deter police abuse and to ensure transparency in any interaction between an officer and an individual.

There were two bills in the Act, one introduced by then-City Council member and now Brooklyn Borough President Antonio Reynoso and the other introduced by Torres. After hearings and negotiations, Torres made changes to his bill.

The Reynoso bill was championed by many police reform advocates, earning the praise of Monifa Bandele, a spokesperson for a prominent coalition, since Reynosos bill would bring transparency and accountability regarding searches during non-emergency policing encounters that have no legal basis other than a persons supposed consent."

Of Torres bill, Bandele said: This NYPD bill being advanced by Torres is neither the Right to Know Act nor a compromise, but political backroom dealing and a surrender of legislative independence to the NYPD and the Mayor. Bandeles statement reflected the sentiment of other reform advocates, who felt that the updated version of Torres police reform bill conceded too much to the NYPD.

Torres indeed negotiated particulars of the bill with NYPD representatives and the mayors office. But he insisted that any concessions made to the de Blasio administration would ensure the needed transparency in a number of interactions between police and individuals.

Torres earned the scorn of both police reform advocates and the police unions. History has shown that this type of criticism from both extremes is often the result of political decisions made by pragmatic progressives. Acknowledging the need for negotiations between disparate political interests and views in order to achieve progress on behalf of the citizenry never earns them friends at the extremes and most devoted parties, but does win them broad support among the more pragmatic general population.

Torres has done this again with his position on the status of Puerto Rico, siding for statehood for the Caribbean island, a position favored by conservatives on both the island and the mainland. A little over two weeks after winning his congressional race in a historically majority-Latino (and Puerto Rican) congressional district that was once represented by Herman Badillo, Torres penned an op-ed declaring his support for Puerto Rico statehood. His statehood stance can be succinctly captured by his declaration that As Americans, we must speak out forcefully against the de jure disenfranchisement of our fellow citizens in Puerto Rico, for it represents a deep rot at the very core of American democracy, not to mention a manifestation of the very systemic racism against which millions have stood in protest.

Using the lens of systemic racism to critique the current status of Puerto Rico is in essence utilizing a progressive principle (the fight against systemic racism and the acknowledgement of Puerto Ricos colonial status) in order to stand on the side of statehood, a position long held by mostly conservatives in Puerto Rico.

This position places Torres on the opposite side of the issue from the other two Puerto Rican congressional representatives in New York City, Reps. Nydia Velzquez and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, both of whom have introduced the Puerto Rico Self-Determination Act of 2021. The bill seeks to give Puerto Ricans on the island the opportunity to finally determine their status through an elaborate process that would include publicly-financed elections and a convention with delegates elected by the Puerto Rican people. Torres believes that Puerto Ricans have already determined their will by a recent referendum in which voters selected statehood as their preferred option.

While the police reform bill and Torres position on the status of Puerto Rico may cause some to question his progressive bona fides, it is also important to remember his championing of a myriad of progressive issues. For instance, Torres has introduced a bill that would require the Federal Home Loan Banks to drastically increase investments in affordable housing, community development, and small business lending. And of course, on the issue of public housing, few elected officials in New York have been as relentless and consistent on the need to revamp our public housing facilities through massive federal investment. More recently, Torres led a push, supported by Ocasio-Cortez, demanding that billions in funding be secured for public housing and rental assistance.

It is difficult to peg Torres solely on one end of even the progressive spectrum. Throughout his career as an elected official, Torres positions have reflected the thinking of a pragmatist who acknowledges the need to balance interests for the greater goal of achieving progressive values.

***Eli Valentin is an adjunct professor at Iona College. He writes regular columns for Gotham Gazette, largely focused on Latino politics in New York City, and is a frequent guest political analyst at Univision NY. On Twitter @EliValentinNY.

***Eli Valentin is a political analyst and author of the forthcoming book, Reinhold Niebuhr: A Political Life. On Twitter@EliValentinNY.

***Have an op-ed idea or submission for Gotham Gazette? EmailThis email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Read more from the original source:
The Pragmatic Progressivism of Ritchie Torres - Gotham Gazette

Progressive politicians, activists, and advocacy groups on Thursday cheered as Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson was confirmed to the United States Supreme Court, becoming the first Black woman and first public defender to serve on the nations highest judicialbody.

Jackson, who was nominated by President Joe Biden to replace retiring Justice Stephen Breyer, was confirmed by the U.S. Senate in amostly party-line vote of 5347. Three Republican senatorsSusan Collins (Maine), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), and Mitt Romney (Utah)joined all members of the Democratic caucus in voting to confirm the 51-year old federal appellatejudge.

This is truly ajoyful day for the country, said Congressional Progressive Caucus Chair Pramila Jayapal (DWash.), calling Jackson one of the most experienced nominees in decades: aformer district court and court of appeals judge, Supreme Court clerk, U.S. Sentencing Commission member, and former publicdefender.

The country saw her poise, grace, thoughtfulness, and brilliance as she handled every part of the confirmation processincluding some outrageous attacks from Republican senators that damaged only their credibility, not hers, she added. She has shown what it means to rise above the nastiness and to bring her history as ajudge and her experience as aBlack woman to her jurisprudence. She rightfully has earned the admiration and respect of millions across thecountry.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (IVt.) said in astatement that in these difficult times, the stakes for the future of this country are higher than ever and the Supreme Court will play asignificant role in shaping thatfuture.

In my view, we need anew member of the Supreme Court who has astrong track record of standing up for justiceeconomic justice, racial justice, social justice, political justice, and environmental justice, he added. There is no doubt that Judge Jackson is thatperson.

Jacksons confirmation was also hailed by Rashad Robinson, president of the civil rights advocacy group Color of Change, who said she has raised the bar in terms of qualifications for the Supreme Courtgreatly raising our countrys expectations for who should sit on ourcourts.

Her perspective as apublic defender has long been missing from the court and denied influence across the judiciary, as has her real-world experience addressing racial injustices in sentencing, he continued. We must remember and redouble our commitment to redefining the role of judges and prosecutors across our countryto ensure they serve the people rather than serving corrupt interests and ensure they end racial injustice rather than exacerbatingit.

We must also remember that Black activismand Black votersbrought us to this long-awaited moment, Robinson added. Black voters and activists made President Biden promise to appoint aBlack woman to the Supreme Court, and Black voters and activists made him keep thatpromise.

Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law president and executive director Damon Hewitt said that Judge Ketanji Brown Jacksons rise to the Supreme Court is amoment unlike any other in our nationshistory.

Hewitt added:

Our democracy is on the precipice, which is evident from the relentless attacks on voting rights and the right to reproductive freedom, efforts to ban truthful curriculum from schools, and threats to school board members and election workers. These are all manifestations of the politically motivated culture war that undoubtedly fueled the unnecessarily fraught process that Judge Jackson endured these past few weeks. The spectacle should not be regulated to ahistorical footnote, but should instead stand as awarning that the embrace of baseless attacks on nominees corrodes our political systemand that those intent on waging aculture war ultimately will notwin.

The disability advocacy group RespectAbility noted that during her time on the lower courts, Justice Jackson has ruled that public school districts must do their due diligence to comply with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, providing students adequate services before placing them in privateschool.

Justice Jackson has also ruled incarceration facilities must address the needs of every prisoner with adisability upon entry, the group added. As apublic defender, Justice Jackson defended clients with mental health, intellectual, and developmentaldisabilities.

In astatement, RespectAbility policy director Philip Kahn-Pauli said that we look forward to her continuing to advocate for people with disabilities on the highest court in theland.

A coalition of climate and environmental advocacy groupsAzul, Chispa League of Conservation Voters, Clean Water Action, Corazn Latino, Earthjustice, Endangered Species Coalition, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace USA, Interfaith Power and Light, League of Conservation Voters, Natural Resources Defense Council, National Wildlife Federation, Sierra Club, Trust for Public Land, Waterway Advocates, and The Wilderness Societyreleased ajoint statement celebrating Jacksonsconfirmation.

Clean air, clean water, climate action, environmental justice, and the right to vote are at stake in our judicial system right nowespecially in the Supreme Court, the groups wrote. Our laws are only as strong as the judges who uphold them. We are confident that Justice Jackson understands the governments authority to protect the public and will hold everyone, including powerful corporate polluters, to the same high standards of thelaw.

After 233years, it is well past time for the Supreme Court to include aBlack woman, they added. This is an essential step forward, as communities of color bear disproportionate burdens of toxic air and water pollution and our nation faces the enormous challenge of addressing environmental injustices from coast tocoast.

This story was first published at Common Dreams.

See more here:
Ketanji Brown Jackson Is Now a Supreme Court JusticeAnd Progressives Are Thrilled - In These Times

As soon as Emmanuel Macron was sure that Joe Biden had won the American election, he tweeted: We have a lot to do to overcome todays challenges. Lets work together! There was no effusive tweet this week from the lyse when 54 per cent of Hungarian voters re-elected Viktor Orban as Prime Minister for a fourth term.

The silence from Macron was deafening. Not so his principal rival in Frances impending election. On Sunday evening Marine Le Pen tweeted an old photo of the happy couple shaking hands with the declaration: When the people vote, the people win! Le Pen will hope that Orbans victory is a good omen ahead of Sundays first round of voting; they have much in common a shared vision of the future, what Orban described in his victory speech as Christian Democratic, middle-class conservative and patriotic politics.

It is likely that she will not unseat Macron, who is odds-on to win a second term as president in the final vote on 24 April. An upset isnt an impossibility given the way the polls have narrowed in the past month there are now just five percentage points between them but Macron is the safer option in this era of grave uncertainty. Better the devil and all that.

Its been a challenging year for Macron, not at all what he expected when France assumed the rotating presidency of the EU Council on 1 January. It was the ideal dovetail as he readied himself for re-election, the consolidation of his power as head of the Republic and, to all intents and purposes, Europe. Angela Merkel had just shuffled off the international stage and the new Chancellor, Olaf Scholz, had the appearance of a rather bland successor. Macron envisaged himself the de facto president of Europe.

Scholz, however, has proved to be the most hawkish German leader for decades. His decision in response to Russias invasion of Ukraine to invest 100 billion to modernise the countrys military and buy American F-35 fighters has wrongfooted Macron. Germany is back is the message, and although it will take time for the defence investment to bear fruit, France is no longer the EUs only senior player militarily. This is a blow to Macrons dreams of a European army. Hes been pushing the idea for a while, memorably describing Natos brain death in 2019. Russias invasion of Ukraine has strengthened his conviction.

This was a factor in Macrons decision on 1 January to usher in Frances presidency of the EU Council by unfurling the blocs blue and gold flag under the Arc de Triomphe. Nationalists were apoplectic, none more so than Le Pen, who declared it an attack on Frances identity. Macron didnt care. Indeed, the EU flag was flown again from the Arc last month when he hosted EU leaders to a summit in Versailles to discuss events in Ukraine. Orban was there, signing up Hungary to the sanctions imposed against Russia. Hungary in March 2022 has returned to the fold, exclaimed one French diplomat. Thanks, Putin!

Not so fast. Orban remains a reluctant participant in the EU response to Russias invasion. He has not sent weapons to Ukraine or permitted other member states to transit their arms through Hungary. He is the only European leader critical of Volodymyr Zelensky. The disdain is mutual. Zelensky has described Orban as virtually the only [leader] in Europe to openly support Putin. Which, of course, he is.

Hungarian voters werent put off by the Putin factor. Its the cheaper energy bills, stupid. That and the EU. One of the campaign slogans of Hungarys opposition alliance of liberals and socialists was Orban or Europe. The answer was emphatic, leaving the opposition to rue that all-too-common failing among Europhiles: over-estimating the street appeal of the EU. They ignored the fact that Orban has been asking his people the same question since 2010: my way or the EUs?

The same dynamic was evident last summer when Hungary passed legislation banning the dissemination in schools of material judged to promote homosexuality or gender change. The EU was furious. Respect LGBT rights or leave the EU, they told Orban at a stormy summit. It was really forceful, a deep feeling that this could not be, Dutch PM Mark Rutte explained. It was about our values; this is what we stand for. Macron described it as a cultural battle and said: To fight against homophobic laws is to defend individual freedoms and human dignity.

Rutte and Macron spoke passionately about individual freedoms and human dignity shortly before they imposed some of the most illiberal measures ever seen in their post-war countries. In the name of enforcing lockdown policies, Dutch police in Rotterdam opened fire on protestors with live rounds and in France millions of people who refused the vaccine were shut out from society by a president who cheerfully admitted he wanted to piss them off.

Orban is credited in 2014 with coining the phrase illiberal democracy; but judging by what has gone on in much of the West in the past two years, his creed has caught on.

His response to the LGBT furore was to remind his western critics that during the days of communism in Hungary he had championed the rights of minorities. Homosexuality was punished and I fought for their freedom and their rights, he said. He then stated that parents and not the EU should have the final say in how their children are educated about sex.

He portrays his agenda as genuinely liberal and his opponents as hectoring, proscribing or condescending. All too often, they play straight into his hands. We never had so many opponents, Orban said after his victory. Brussels bureaucrats the international mainstream media, and the Ukrainian president.

Macron will never be reconciled to Brexit, because the idea of any country flourishing outside the EU is an alternative truth. In a speech to the European parliament in January, Macron said: It is up to our generations to renew our Europe, to fulfil its promises of democracy, progress and peace.

But now there is war once more in Europe, which is already testing the resolve and unity of the EU as the economic ramifications start to bite. This week Germany rejected an EU embargo on Russian gas imports, and several French companies are refusing to withdraw from Russia. On the other hand, Poland which shares Hungarys cultural conservatism has moved closer to Brussels in the wake of the invasion of Ukraine. Yet Macron is the EU darling, and Hungary and Poland are the populist pariahs.

The notion of the Visegrad Four countries as a bloc Hungary, Poland, Czech Republic and Slovakia is falling away. The Czechs and Slovaks have centre-left governments, so its hardly an illiberal alliance. The Poles, more hawkish on Russia than perhaps anyone else in Europe, are appalled at Orbans cosiness with the Kremlin. At the Visegrad Four summit in London last week, the differences were such that they struggled to agree a statement.

This leaves Orban more alone than ever within the EU, and Putin will seek to exploit this isolation, as he has for many years with prominent western politicians he considers hostile to Brussels. In congratulating the Hungarian PM on his victory, the Russian President expressed his desire to further strengthen bilateral ties of partnership.

Putin would like to send a congratulatory message this month to another European leader, but it is unlikely that Marine Le Pen will grant him that opportunity. Rather Macron will be re-elected president and Brussels will have at its heart once more its greatest cheerleader.

Whether he will be able to renew Europe remains to be seen. Macron is desperate to be the saviour of the EU but he might end up being its last true believer.

See more here:
Progressives vs populists: Macron, Orban and Europe's faultline - The Spectator

The presidential ambition of Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu remains unshakable despite Vice President Yemi Osinbajos decision to join the 2023 race.

The Lagos chapter of the All Progressives Congress (APC) stated this after Tinubu met with the governors elected on the platform of the APC in Abuja on Monday.

The APC leaders meeting with the Progressive Governors Forum (PGF) was held hours after Osinbajo met the APC governors and declared his presidential ambition.

The Lagos APC tweeted after Tinubus meeting: Our focus remains unshakableThank you for coming PGF Governors Message loud and clear Our focus remains unshakableThe objectives defined.Future assuredASIWAJU is the answer.

Thank you for coming PGF Govs Message loud and clear Our focus remains unshakable The objectives defined.Future assured

ASIWAJU is the answer pic.twitter.com/Lphfxk2tpY

Tinubu was believed to have used the meeting which was held at the Kebbi State Governors Lodge in Asokoro, Abuja, to seek assurance from the APC governors to support his presidential bid.

While the APC leader has yet to formally declare for the race, he had informed President Muhammadu Buhari about his ambition during a visit to the State House in January.

Osinbajo was said to have resisted pressure from his supporters to declare his ambition earlier than now because of his loyalty to Tinubu and the need to observe the body language of his former boss.

His declaration now officially pits him against Tinubu in the race to grab the presidential ticket of the ruling APC.

See the original post:
Lagos APC Says Tinubu 'Unshakable' After Meeting Progressives Govs Over Osinbajo's Declaration The Whistler Nigeria - The Whistler Nigeria