Mediaboss Marketing

City leaders are engaged in the most substantial debate over Philadelphias tax structure in years.

Mayor Jim Kenney has proposed accelerating cuts to the citys unusually high wage tax, while City Council members are focused on property tax relief. Progressives are pushing for a new city wealth tax, while the Chamber of Commerce pushes for business and wage tax cuts. And some observers are questioning fundamental assumptions about how the city collects revenue.

Council members and the administration are negotiating over the city budget that begins July 1. Given that many of those involved are pulling in opposite directions, it is possible that next years tax structure will look a lot like this years. But it wont be the end of the debate, with potential candidates for next years mayoral and Council races staking out their visions for how the city should be funded.

There are several reasons taxes have taken center stage this year after recent budget cycles, which focused on how the city would survive the economic downturn at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic and how it would fight the gun violence crisis.

The first citywide property reassessment in three years has prompted lawmakers to prioritize how to soften the impact of rising real estate taxes. The citys progressive movement is aiming to stake out a left flank of a debate that has long been dominated by centrist-minded solutions. And the coronavirus pandemic has changed the economy, with the increase in work-from-home threatening the already-fragile wage tax, and an infusion of federal aid giving the city wiggle room in its budget.

READ MORE: Its wrong: Philly property assessments double in some working-class neighborhoods

Its terrible that the pandemic is the thing that gets us to focus on this, but its a positive side effect, said Paul Levy, who leads the Center City District, which promotes the success of downtown and was central to the last major push to reshape Phillys tax structure. Thats whats forced this debate, and thats good.

Next years mayoral race, for which five Council members are considering a run, will see the divide over taxes reach new levels.

Councilmembers Derek Green and Allan Domb, for instance, believe lowering the wage tax will foster job growth, and would likely make business-friendly policy solutions a central campaign theme if they run. Councilmember Helen Gym, meanwhile, is part of the progressive push to reorient the citys focus away from tax cuts and toward investing in social services. And technocratic Councilmember Maria Quiones-Snchez wants to continue her work reforming the business income and receipts tax.

But first, Council and the administration will hash out a compromise over tax policy for the next city budget in closed-door meetings that are ramping up now. They must reach an agreement by the end of June.

In 1939, Philadelphia became the first city in the country to enact a wage tax. It was supposed to be a temporary measure to see the city through the Great Depression, but it stayed on the books and became the root of a tax system unique among major U.S. cities.

Philadelphias 1.3998% property tax rate of which 55% goes to the school district, and 45% to the city is lower than most local governments. Its wage tax rate 3.8398% for city residents, and 3.4481% for people who work in the city but live outside of it is the highest among big cities.

In this years $5.6 billion budget, the city projects it will take in $719 million in property tax revenue and $1.5 billion from the wage tax.

This year, Kenney is proposing reducing the wage tax rate for city residents to 3.7% over two years, while addressing rising property assessments by increasing the homestead exemption from $45,000 to $60,000, and adding funding to programs that help low-income Philadelphians hold on to their homes.

READ MORE: Heres whats in Mayor Jim Kenneys $5.6 billion budget proposal

Council will likely go further on property tax relief, potentially increasing the homestead exemption to the legal maximum of $90,000, and some members are less eager to take a significant chunk out of the wage tax.

No major proposals on the business income and receipts tax have been made public, but business groups are pushing Council to lower or reform it.

Critics of the wage tax say it pushes jobs to the suburbs and subjects the city budget to unnecessary volatility because it is more responsive to economic ups and downs than property taxes. A succession of Philadelphia mayors beginning with Ed Rendell has followed a policy of small annual cuts to the wage tax, but it remains the highest in the nation.

The wage tax and the citys proclivity for enacting new levies in the last 10 years alone, Philadelphia has created new taxes on cigarettes, sugary beverages, and construction have turned the notion that Philly is a high-tax city into conventional wisdom.

But progressives are now challenging that assumption. Marc Stier, director of the left-leaning Pennsylvania Budget and Policy Center, in April published an analysis in the Philadelphia Citizen showing that the citys overall tax burden is in the middle of the pack when compared with peer cities.

At $4,302 per person, Philadelphias annual tax burden ranked 13th out of the 30 largest U.S. cities, Stier found. Past analyses showing Philly with extraordinarily high tax collections, he wrote, failed to take into account Philadelphias status as both a city and county.

Levy responded with an essay of his own, arguing that it was misleading to focus on the per-capita dollar value of the citys tax burden instead of tax rates that drive businesses out of the city.

In many ways, the writers were talking past each other: It is true Philadelphia has an unusually high wage tax rate, and it is also true Philadelphia overall is not one of the most highly taxed cities.

A new group called Tax the Rich PHL wants city leaders to focus on better funding services instead of making the city more business-friendly through tax cuts. Led by Arielle Klagsbrun, who managed Councilmember Kendra Brooks historic 2019 win for the Working Families Party, the group is backing Brooks wealth tax proposal, which would capture up to 0.4% of Philadelphians direct holdings in stocks and bonds.

While the tax appears unlikely to pass this year, progressives are hoping it helps to reset the debate with a vision for what progressive taxation could look like in Philadelphia.

Strangely missing from the discussion is the Tax Reform Working Group, which was convened last year by Kenney and Council. Jim Engler, Kenneys chief of staff, said the group met several times but failed to reach consensus.

It was really good to have those discussions and have a shared understanding of the challenges that we face, but when you have these discussions I dont know that theres really one perfect answer, Engler said.

Debates over Philadelphias tax structure tend to scramble ideologies.

Levy and the business community, for instance, have long lobbied for a substantial reduction in the city wage tax rate despite the tax being a major reason Philadelphia has a regressive tax structure. He even helped lead a major push to replace wage tax revenue with an increase in commercial property taxes.

Due to the Pennsylvania Constitutions uniformity clause, which requires all taxpayers to be treated equally, Philadelphia cannot enact a progressive structure for the wage tax by taking a greater percentage from high earners, as the federal government does with the income tax.

That means low-income workers pay the same percentage of their wages as high-earners, placing a greater burden on the livelihoods of the working poor because wealthy people tend to take in more of their income from investments that are not taxed at the local level.

Many progressives, meanwhile, resist calls to cut the wage tax, arguing the city should focus on ways to increase funding for city services instead of cutting taxes. But they are loath to endorse increasing the property tax which would make the citys tax structure more progressive, because people with more valuable property holdings would pay more due to concerns such a hike would accelerate gentrification.

After seeing assessments skyrocket in her West Philadelphia-based district, for instance, Councilmember Jamie Gauthier this year floated the idea of responding by lowering the property tax rate, which could help some homeowners in her district but would disproportionately benefit rich Philadelphians and developers overall.

Gauthier says shes not actively pushing to lower the rate now but supports a property tax relief package introduced by Councilmember Kenyatta Johnson.

The city, she said, needs to focus on growing revenues to fund city services instead of cutting wage and business taxes.

Were trying to come out of a pandemic. City services have fallen down over the past two years, and we need to get back to offering high-quality services in an equitable way, she said. We need to support our communities, and I think our tax policy has to be looked at through that lens.

Here is the original post:
How the pandemic, progressives, and property assessments are fueling a debate over Philly's taxes - The Philadelphia Inquirer

Doing so would provide a public rebuttal to the silencing noise instigated by white evangelicals who are intransigent when Americas youth are killed by guns

In the wake of the recent shootings in Tulsa, Okla., Uvalde, Tex., and Buffalo, N.Y., these tragic events have, predictably, reignited political debates over gun control, specifically the banning of assault weapons. However, for white progressives, this political debate is one of many that are shaping the 2022 midterm election year. In addition to debates over gun control, voting rights, the need for a social safety net, and womens reproductive rights have also loomed large. But without a filibuster-proof majority in the US Senate, most of the hopes of progressives nationwide are dead on arrival. For progressive Christians in this country, this is dreadful news.

News out of right-wing Christian circles often dominates the mainstream media, which leaves progressive Christian causes to be lumped under the broad banner of the left. As a result, American Christianity is branded by the loudest voices in the room, which is often those associated with white evangelicalism.

First, as an ordained minister, I am not enraged, but I am angry. I am angry at my fellow Americans who abdicate their civic duty by not participating in the electoral process. I am angry at Christian ministers who preach and advocate hate for the other in their pulpits. I am angry at political candidates who invoke God and Jesus at rallies in a jingoistic fashion to stir up the crowd. I am angry at elected officials who have consistently provided thoughts and prayers without action. But most of all, I am angry at white progressive Christians who have sat on the sidelines while the religious right has co-opted what it means to be a Christian in America.

Rooted in the African American church tradition, James Cone, the founder of Black liberation theology, famously wrote his first book, Black Theology, Black Power, in the five weeks immediately after the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. (GRS55, Hon.59). In many of his speeches, he was quite clear that he wrote the book because he was angry. Cone considered himself Americas angriest theologian, fully aware that a theology of anger has the power to convert hearts and minds into political action.

In 2015, a day after a gunman opened fire at a Bible study group at Mother Emanuel AME Church in Charleston, S.C., the son of one of the victims offered forgiveness to Dylann Roof. To date, no family member of the deceased in Tulsa, Uvalde, or Buffalo has done the same. I believe this to be a sign that sentiments over these atrocities are changing. Rather than resigning themselves to the fate that, in fact, this is who we are, I, as a Black Baptist minister, implore white progressive Christians to adopt a theology of anger.

White progressive Christians should borrow from the Black liberation tradition and adopt a theology of anger. It provides a constructive framework that appropriately responds to the carnage that took place in an Oklahoma hospital, a Texas elementary school, and a New York grocery store. Employing a theology of anger can furnish an operational language to give voice to the frustration felt by many across this nation. It can also accommodate the radical hope for deep conversion in the hearts and minds of elected officials who already possess the power to change policy and prevent these tragedies from occurring again and again.

Such a constructive theology allows for a refusal of the status quo. White progressive Christians who incorporate a theology of anger can then offer a public rebuttal to the silencing noise instigated by white evangelicals who are intransigent when classrooms of Americas youth are killed, from Virginia Tech to Sandy Hook (Connecticut) to Parkland (Florida) and now Robb Elementary School in Uvalde. Adopting a God-talk that has its foundation in anger reclaims the narrative of who speaks for Christians in America by signaling that white evangelicals do not speak for all Christians.

This approach is not to repudiate other forms of faithful devotion and response to the tragedies that beset us, but rather to advocate that a faithful posture to the bloodshed of innocents and political passivity also includes an acknowledgment of anger. White progressive Christians need a wake-up call to rise out of their beds of privilege and seize the day. Hopefully, the tragic events in Tulsa, Uvalde, and Buffalo demonstrate that hitting the snooze button is not an acceptable response. A theological answer grounded in anger is needed by white progressive Christians to move beyond their own thoughts and prayers and embody the Christian doctrine that faith without works is truly dead.

Joshua Lawrence Lazard (STH25) is a PhD candidate at the Boston University School of Theology; he can be reached at jlazard@bu.edu.

POV is an opinion page that provides timely commentaries from students, faculty, and staff on a variety of issues: on-campus, local, state, national, or international. Anyone interested in submitting a piece, which should be about 700 words long, should contact John ORourke at orourkej@bu.edu. BU Today reserves the right to reject or edit submissions. The views expressed are solely those of the author and are not intended to represent the views of Boston University.

See the rest here:
POV: The White Progressive Christian Church Needs to Adopt a Theology of Anger - Boston University

AMAC Exclusive By Claire Brighn

For years now, California politics has been synonymous with left-wing progressivism, and the state has become notorious for producing such radical figures as Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Rep. Maxine Waters, Senator Dianne Feinstein, and of course Vice President Kamala Harris. But this year, with so many Democrat-induced crises at top of mind in the Golden State crime and public safety chief among them there are some signs in public polling that voters may have finally had enough.

According to a recent Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies poll, California voters cite crime and public safety among their top three concerns behind only homelessness and housing affordability. Pair this with the fact that 51% of California voters say Governor Newsom is doing poorly on the issue of crime up 16 points from 2020 and it appears support for progressive Democrat leadership is souring.

This shift in public opinion follows a worsening trend in crime nationwide. In 2020, there was a 30% surge in the homicide rate. But in 2021, when the effects of the Defund the Police movement started to take their toll, many California cities saw the problem grow far worse: in Oakland, there were 134 killings; in Los Angeles, 397 the highest in 15 years for both cities. Already, killings in LA are on pace to surpass last years totals. In pockets throughout the state, last years extraordinary spike in retail theft, smash and grab robberies, and property crimes continues unabated.

By now its obvious that progressive district attorneys have played an outsized role in fanning the flames of lawlessness. LA District Attorney George Gascn is a prime example of this. Elected in 2020, his new approach to criminal justice included no juveniles tried as adults, no cash bail except violent felonies, and no death sentences. Moreover, he did away with sentencing enhancements.

Combined with a $150 million cut to the LAPD budget last year, and the result has been a complete breakdown in law and order in the city. Last year, for example, leaked audio showed an inmate planning to attack a police officer in LA County during a prison transfer so that he could be resentenced under Gascons more lenient directives.

The effort to recall Gascn (led by Desiree Andrade, the mother of a young man brutally murdered whose killers received lenient sentences under his policies) is on the cusp of having enough votes to put it on the ballot before the July deadline. Conversely, Los Angeles Sherriff Alex Villenueva a tough-on-crime Democrat who once called out Gascn for living in a woke palace and has pushed for clearing out homeless encampments appears on track to win re-election, with BPS polling showing that 55% of Latino voters in Los Angeles have a favorable opinion of him compared to only 24% who have an unfavorable opinion.

San Francisco DA Chesa Boudin is already on the ballot for recall on June 7, and the outlook for him is grim indeed. One poll found that 68% percent of likely San Francisco voters say they will vote to recall him including 64% of Democrats. As DA, Boudin has refused to prosecute many crimes, ended cash bail, and expressed open hostility toward law enforcement.

Digging into the data behind these recalls and other ideological trends among California voters shows an alarming trend for progressives, who are losing support with the very groups they proclaim their policies will help the most. According to a recent April 2022 California Community Poll, for example, 63% of Latinos and 58% of African Americans are dissatisfied with crime and public safety in their area more than any other demographic an 18 point and 15 point jump from February 2020, respectively. This shift alone clashes with the notion of systemic racism that radical progressives cite as reason for their soft on crime policies.

Given that California has had a Democrat supermajority since 2011, a quick, full-fledged red flip seems unlikely. But history suggests a turnaround is not impossible. In his book San Fransicko, Michael Shellenberger (once a Democrat who is now running as an Independent against Governor Gavin Newsom) writes: the chaos, political radicalism, and rising crime in the late 1960s provoked a desire among all races and both political parties for greater law and order. In 1976, beginning with the Uniform Determinate Sentencing Act, then throughout 1980s and 90s, voters, policy makers, judges, and prosecutors pursued steeper charges and longer sentences.

The first part of that equation is undoubtedly already in place in California now. And seeing as todays Democratic Party is dominated by uncompromising radicals completely devoted to rigid partisan ideology, the prospect for reform seems remote. Given those two conditions, the opportunity may be ripe for more moderate Democrats and Republican challengers to channel voter frustrations into some real and much-needed changes in the cradle of American progressivism.

Claire Brighn is the pen name of a conservative researcher and writer with previous domestic and foreign policy experience in the Executive Branch.

We hope you've enjoyed this article. While you're here, we have a small favor to ask...

Support AMAC Action. Our 501 (C)(4) advances initiatives on Capitol Hill, in the state legislatures, and at the local level to protect American values, free speech, the exercise of religion, equality of opportunity, sanctity of life, and the rule of law.

Here is the original post:
Polls Show This Might Be the Year California Finally Rejects Failed Progressive Policies - AMAC

Governors and other leaders of the All Progressives Congress (APC) from Northern Nigeria have demanded that the presidential ticket of the party be zoned to the southern part of the country.

The governors stated their position in a public statement signed by 10 of them and the leader of the party in Sokoto State, Aliyu Wamakko.

A total of 22 of Nigerias 36 states are governed by the APC. Fourteen of the governors are from the North, while eight are from the South.

Only four northern APC state governors did not sign the statement. Two of them, Yahaya Bello of Kogi and Abubakar Badaru of Jigawa, are among the APCs 23 presidential aspirants.

The 10 Northern APC governors that signed the statement are those of Kaduna, Kano, Katsina, Niger, Nasarawa, Zamfara, Gombe, Borno, Plateau and Kebbi.

The statement by the Northern governors comes a few days after President Muhammadu Buhari told APC governors that he wanted to pick his successor and needs their support to do so.

Mr Buhari did not, however, name his preferred candidate, thus leaving room for speculations.

At the time of this report, Mr Buhari was meeting with the 23 presidential aspirants of the APC.

Before the stance of the northern APC governors, their colleagues from the south had unanimously stated that the partys presidential candidate should be from the southern part of the country.

Read the full statement by the Northern APC governors below.

APC governors and political leaders from the northern states of Nigeria today met to review the political situation and to further support our Party in providing progressive leadership amidst our national challenges. During our discussions, we welcomed President Muhammadu Buharis invitation to governors and other stakeholders to contribute to the emergence of a strong presidential candidate for the APC.

After careful deliberation, we wish to state our firm conviction that after eight years in office of President Muhammadu Buhari, the presidential candidate of the APC for the 2023 elections should be one of our teeming members from the southern states of Nigeria. It is a question of honour for the APC, an obligation that is not in anyway affected by the decisions taken by another political party. We affirm that upholding this principle is in the interest of building a stronger, more united and more progressive country.

We therefore wish to strongly recommend to President Muhammadu Buhari that the search for a successor as the APCs presidential candidate be limited to our compatriots from the southern states. We appeal to all aspirants from the northern states to withdraw in the national interest and allow only the aspirants from the south to proceed to the primaries. We are delighted by the decision of our esteemed colleague, His Excellency, Governor Abubakar Badaru to contribute to this patriotic quest by withdrawing his presidential aspiration.

The APC has a duty to ensure that the 2023 elections offer a nation-building moment, reaffirming that a democratic pathway to power exists for all who value cooperation and build national platforms. This moment calls for the most sober and inclusive approach to selecting our partys candidate, and we call on all APC leaders to fulfil their responsibility in this regard.

Signed, 4th June 2022:

1. Aminu Bello Masari Governor of Katsina State

2. Abubakar Sani Bello Governor of Niger State

3. Abdullahi A. Sule Governor of Nasarawa State

4. Prof. B.G. Umara Zulum Governor of Borno State

5. Nasir Ahmad El-Rufai Governor of Kaduna State

6. Muhammad Inuwa Yahaya Governor of Gombe State

7. Bello M. Matawalle Governor of Zamfara State

8. Simon Bako Lalong Governor of Plateau State

9. Senator Aliyu Wamakko Former Governor of Sokoto State

10. Dr. A.U. Ganduje Governor of Kano State

11. Senator Abubakar Atiku Bagudu Governor of Kebbi State

Donate

TEXT AD: Why women cheat: what every Nigerian man should know

Go here to read the rest:
2023: Northern APC governors meet, want presidency zoned to the South - Premium Times

Blair urges progressives to rebuild atrophied muscles of self-discipline. For much of the left, Blair said on Clintons program, its not clear that their main goal is really to win power or wield it: Its primary purpose is to make itself feel good about itself, right? To convince itself that its principled, right? But that is in the end, something that leads you to self-indulgence. Unless progressives commit to reclaiming the center in culture wars, Blair added, theyll remain vulnerable to some loose remark from someone being exploited by the right and will be hammered day in, day out. Thats just not competent politics.

A reasonable question: Who cares what these superannuated politicians have to say? A reasonable answer: Even now, a generation after they came to power, Clinton and Blair are still the emblematic representatives of a distinct brand of progressive centrism.

That description is faint praise to some ears, and criticism to others. But this is an apt moment to recall a time when it was invoked unambiguously as a compliment.

Blairs appearance on Clintons podcast marked the 25th anniversary of a then 43-year-old Blair coming to power as prime minister in Britain in May 1997. Shortly after Blairs victory, Clinton who at 50 had been inaugurated for his second term a few months before arrived in London on a working visit. The two leaders held a news conference in the garden of 10 Downing Street in which they held forth with absorbing fluency on the lessons of their dual success.

I was a White House reporter at the time, and the news conference remains one of my vivid memories in six years covering Clintons presidency. Most journalists, like many others in the U.S. political class, tended to vow Clintons centrist New Democrat image through the prism of narrow political messaging. By these lights, it was essentially a set of defensive tactics, designed to reassure voters that Clinton was not a more traditional interest-group liberal like Walter Mondale or Michael Dukakis.

Blairs victory, and seeing two energetic young leaders standing side-by-side with obvious mutual respect, suddenly made plain how inadequate it was to view Clintonism as merely slick salesmanship and tactical improvisation. It was plainly something more a set of ideas about how progressives should govern in a modern economy and an increasingly interconnected world. Blairs election, in combination with the successes of similar politicians in other countries, clearly indicated these ideas were on the march globally.

Then-U.S. President Bill Clinton, center right, and his wife Hillary, left, pose in front of London's Tower Bridge with then-British Prime Minister Tony Blair, right, and his wife Cherie, center left, before dining in a nearby restaurant.|Greg Gibson, File/AP Photo

The brand of politics Blair and Clinton stood for now often called Third Way, a phrase then not yet in vogue in the United States started with a critique of the alternatives. The problem with traditional liberalism was that it was stuck in a rut more responsive to its interest groups than the broader public interest, insufficiently attuned to the imperative of economic growth. The problem with the post-Reagan, post-Thatcher right was that it had turned brutish and backward-looking enmeshed in racial and sexual prejudice, indifferent to the challenge of expanding opportunity to people who didnt already count as societys winners.

These shortcomings meant that an energetic, disciplined politics of the center was the best hope for creating a humane, rational, prosperous global order in the 21st century. Expanded global trade, technological disruption and a burgeoning, super-wealthy entrepreneurial class could be good things so long as government protected the most vulnerable and expanded opportunity with targeted assistance in education, childcare and healthcare.

In the 1997 news conference, Clinton referred to the vital center, while Blair invoked the radical center. Both men invoke precisely the same terms in the new podcast. While both leaders are sometimes portrayed as expedient and constantly calibrating politicians, whats striking is the degree of consistency in their worldviews across a quarter-century. Whats different is that in 1997, just on the brink of the 21st century, Blair and Clinton were describing the world as a fundamentally hopeful place. Now we have had nearly a generation of real-world experience with that century marked by war, climate change, virulent nationalism, tribalistic identity politics and a malevolent media ecosystem trafficking in misinformation, commercialized contempt and nihilism. In the podcast, even natural optimists like Clinton and Blair strike notably downbeat notes.

Their conversation invites two questions: Why has that brand of politics, in the ascendancy in 1997, spent most of the years since then in retreat? And is there any relevance to their examples now?

The first answer, of course, is that they paid the price for policy and personal misjudgments. Within months of the Downing Street news conference, Clinton was engulfed in scandal. He survived that, but his ability to challenge his own party and lead a new centrist coalition was sharply limited. Blairs robust support for the Iraq War decimated his popularity and gave him culpability in one of the great policy debacles of this generation. The Clinton-Blair brand of centrism, which cheered free markets and was friendly with Wall Street, was damaged further by the 2008 financial crisis.

Other problems shadow their desire to assume the elder statesman role. Blair was for a time the most unpopular former prime minister in modern British history. He embarked on what many admirers regarded as a disappointing lifestyle of lucrative corporate consultancies and tabloid gossip about a jet-setting social life. Clinton lowered his public profile as the #MeToo movement put accounts of his itinerant past in a more glaring light, and prompted stories about his ties to Jeffrey Epstein, who loaned Clinton his airplane.

But both men seem eager to reclaim their political voices. Clinton in September will revive annual summits of the Clinton Global Initiative, which has been dormant for years after he suspended it during Hillary Rodham Clintons 2016 presidential run. Blair has been evangelizing for his brand of centrist policy responses to issues ranging climate change to right-wing populism through his Institute for Global Change.

Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, right, and former President Bill Clinton hold an on-stage discussion at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia, Monday, Sept. 13, 2010.|Matt Rourke/AP Photo

More so than Clinton, Blair seems eager to confront politicians he disagrees with. Of his Labour Partys problems, Blair rasped: We suffered the last election defeat, which was terrible. And I say [to fellow progressives] What makes you think if theyve been voting conservative for three elections, what they want is a really left-wing labor party, when theyve been rejecting a moderately left-wing party?

Blair told Clinton the problem isnt lack of demand for centrist politics, but that few people are defining the center in a compelling way: We are not splitting the difference between left and right, but youre trying to understand the way the worlds changing and apply eternal values to a changing situation. I think thats the best position for progressive politics. And I think it usually wins when it offers that.

Can this brand of politics compete in a world where extremism often seems like a rational response to the dysfunction and despair of conventional politics? The answer, as ever, is compared to what.

Clinton borrowed his phrase The Vital Center from a landmark book of that name in 1949 by the liberal historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. Late in his life, Schlesinger appreciated the recognition but was uneasy about the association. His Vital Center did not refer to U.S. domestic politics, and it did not mean middle of the road politics. It meant the robust liberal alternative to fascism totalitarianism on the right and communist totalitarianism on the left.

Something like that context exists today, far more than in 1997. From Russia flows a backward-looking vision, based on nostalgia for a lost age that Vladimir Putin and his admirers believe can be reclaimed through violent nationalism. From China flows a futuristic vision of a new world empire in which technology can be turned into an instrument of surveillance and state control. What both visions have in common is the crushing of individual liberty, free press and the right to dissent. In the center between those two are Western democracies. For the moment, they are hardly vital, but instead are snarling, demoralized, dysfunctional.

Blair said he remains optimistic because of human spirit which I believe is basically benign, even though people can of course behave very badly that human spirit is what will us through ultimately, but it needs agency. It needs us to get behind it and do it.

Blair and Clinton may be damaged messengers, but that message is still valuable. The alternative to the vital center is the dead center and an increasingly ugly future.

Here is the original post:
Bill Clinton and Tony Blair Have a Warning for Progressives - POLITICO