Mediaboss Marketing

In better times, the French left used to draw inspiration from the old Popular Front phrase, les lendemains qui chantent (the tomorrows that sing). These days that kind of optimism along with any sense of unity among progressives is just a poignant memory.

With less than 100 days to go before the first round of the French presidential election, the jockeying for position among the flatlining candidates of the left has become a fractious sideshow, as the campaign continues to be dominated by the right. At the weekend, the Socialist former justice minister, Christiane Taubira, became the latest hopeful to formally throw her hat into the ring. She joins the mayor of Paris, Anne Hidalgo also a Socialist France Unboweds veteran hard-left leader Jean-Luc Mlenchon, the Green candidate, Yannick Jadot, and an assortment of fringe figures. None of the candidates has managed to break through the 10% barrier in polls and none has a chance of making it through to the second round of voting; yet all remain in the race, vying to take votes from each other. Singing tomorrows have given way to a cacophonous clashing of stubborn egos. The result is that the 30% or so of voters who identify as being on the broad left are being effectively disfranchised.

Ms Taubira is associated with one of the most notable progressive victories in recent times, having pushed through same-sex marriage in 2013. Charismatic and popular with grassroots activists, she will hope that her radical pedigree can transcend the factional warfare. But there is also a risk that she simply divides this divided field still further. Ms Hidalgo recently warned that the choice for the left was to either unite or risk eventual extinction as a political force in France. But Mr Jadot and Mr Mlenchon, whose poll ratings have more than halved since the election of 2017, have both refused to recognise the validity of an unofficial peoples primary at the end of the month.

It is a sorry spectacle. In 2012, following the election of Franois Hollande as president, the Parti Socialiste controlled the lyse, both houses of parliament and most regional administrations. It then paid a heavy price for enacting post-crash austerity measures and haemorrhaged working-class support during the growing backlash against globalisation. In 2017, the party was out-manoeuvred by Emmanuel Macron, who left it to set up the centrist En Marche movement and successfully brought about a realignment in which he became the presidential bulwark against the threat of the far right.

Faced with these formidable structural challenges, the French left cannot afford the luxury of endless infighting and self-indulgent campaigns leading to mutually assured destruction at the polls. The peoples primary was set up by progressive activists in a last-ditch attempt to achieve a united front. It seems destined to fail in that aim though it may serve as a kind of launchpad for Ms Taubira, who has said she will not run unless she wins. The near-certain humiliation that awaits the left in April should be the catalyst for a radical reboot of how progressive politics is done in France.

Read the original here:
The Guardian view on French progressives: divided they fall - The Guardian

President Joe Biden needs a win, observed NBC News reporter Jonathan Allen last September. Following a string of bad headlines on issues ranging from the resurgent pandemic to the withdrawal of U.S. forces in Afghanistan to a brewing immigration crisis, the administration was desperate for a victory. It didnt get one. As 2021 came to a close, Bidens ambitious legislative initiatives mostly imploded, and the courts struck down his pandemic-related executive initiatives (the eviction moratorium in September, and the private sector vaccine mandate in January). Today, approaching the end of the presidents first year in office, only the most committed partisan hacks can ignore President Joe Bidens losing streak.

This negative perception is an outgrowth of the unreasonable demands the progressive left has made on this administration.

But this negative perception is an outgrowth of the unreasonable demands the progressive left has made on this administration. The presidents first year in office was not bereft of significant and popular accomplishments. In his first weeks in office, Biden signed into law a nearly $2 trillion Covid relief package and, months later, affixed his signature to the largest investment in American infrastructure in the countrys history both of which earned significant bipartisan support in Congress.

Those achievements dont feel especially significant because the Biden administrations progressive allies have set their sights higher, and the White House is allergic to managing their expectations. And yet, the failure of progressive initiatives ranging from a vaccine mandate for private businesses to the Build Back Better bill and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act have set the Biden White House up for a comeback. The only question is, can the administration make the most of it?

A CBS News/YouGov survey released on Jan. 16 diagnoses the administrations primary political malady: Namely, that voters priorities dont seem to align with the presidents. Among all registered voters, the issues that matter most are the economy and jobs, inflation, and, of course, the coronavirus outbreak. Though Biden has tried to convince the public that his long-sought legislative agenda, which predates the current inflationary spiral and is only tangentially related to Covid, would somehow remedy those conditions, many voters arent buying it.

According to that poll, majorities say Biden and his fellow Democrats either dont care about or only care a little about the issues that matter to them. Fewer than half of voters described Biden as competent, focused and effective today. Sixty-four percent of respondents say Americas battle against Covid is going badly. Fifty-eight percent add Biden hasnt devoted enough attention to the economy. Another 65 percent say the same of Bidens disregard for inflation an issue on which 7 in 10 voters disapprove of the presidents performance. But when asked what would improve their opinion of the president, getting inflation under control or passing the Build Back Better bill, a staggering 63 to 24 percent sided with inflation.

And therein lies the opportunity for the Biden White House. That is, if theyre willing to take it.

Democrats spent the better part of the last six months engaged in an insular conversation among themselves over the smorgasbord of legislative reforms bundled up in the Build Back Better bill. But that discussion also often highlighted the price tag. For months after Congress carved the hard infrastructure out of the legislation, this reconciliation bill was known simply as the $3.5 trillion spending plan, the $3.5 trillion Budget Blueprint, or the $3.5 trillion investment. When you spend most of your time calling out an initiatives cost, dont be surprised when the public treats it like a bill they have to pay.

In October, pollsters Joel Benenson and Neil Newhouse found that 71 percent of self-identified independents agreed with the notion that Americans will continue to pay more money on everyday expenses unless the government becomes more fiscally responsible. Thats a reasonable connection to make amid the worst inflation in 40 years and the unprecedented injection of $6 trillion into the economy.

Try as they might, Democrats cannot talk Americans out of noticing the rising cost of consumer goods, nor can they decouple Washingtons spending frenzy from that unhappy condition in voters minds. Nor are they wrong to make that association, according to the San Francisco Federal Reserve, which has warned that excessive Covid relief is contributing to inflationary pressures on the economy. Congresss failure to introduce another $2 trillion in government spending into an already heated economy is, in fact, a gift for this White House. That, and the apparent demise of the Democrats voting rights legislation (which is the priority of just 16 percent of the public, per CBS/YouGov), provides this president with an opportunity to pivot.

Given the administrations makeup, which Washington Post reporter Jeff Stein observed is packed with scores of liberal policy thinkers at its highest levels who come from the [Bernie] Sanders and [Elizabeth] Warren faction of the party, abandoning the preconditions that the left believes constitute success will be bitterly resisted. But this administrations efforts to mollify progressives are arousing the resentment of a much larger host. According to Gallup, voters party identification shifted from a 9-point Democratic advantage to a 5-point GOP lead at the end of 2021. Most of that shift occurred in the second half of the year, amid worsening conditions at home and abroad and with Democrats squarely focused on their partys narrow priorities over the more pressing issues facing the country. If that trend continues into November, it portends a calamitous midterm election year for the party in power.

What would such a pivot look like? Maybe something like the transformation Bill Clintons presidency underwent. Then as now, the president spent his first year in office pursuing transformational social legislation that undermined his self-styled image as a centrist policymaker and bridge-builder. Clinton failed to read the writing on the wall in time to avert a disastrous midterm election, but the message voters were sending was received by 1995.

What would such a pivot look like? Maybe something like the transformation Bill Clintons presidency underwent.

With the aid of his less ideological advisers, Clinton co-opted the Republican issue set by embracing fiscal prudence, opposing racial quotas in the private sector, and endorsing a moral crusade against violence in media. His pollsters went into the field not with the goal of drumming up support for the Democratic agenda but to learn what voters actually wanted particularly those demographics that had most soured on his administration and crafted an agenda around their concerns. Most importantly, the Clinton White House abandoned its pursuit of big, bold reforms in favor of basic managerial competence (for example, overseeing the aftermath of the Oklahoma City bombing and containing a geopolitical crisis in the Balkans). The contrast with a GOP-led Congress so fractious it couldnt even keep the governments lights on was mighty. Bill Clintons makeover worked.

A smaller, more quotidian approach to the day-to-day business of managing a country mired in a prolonged crisis would go a long way toward restoring the impression in voters minds that they got the president they voted for in November 2020. Biden can escape the box canyon into which progressives have corralled his administration. Their failures have given the president a pathway out. All he has to do is take it.

Read more:
Biden popularity poll amid voting rights vote seems bad. But there's a silver lining. - MSNBC

Almost exactly four years ago, I wrote a column based on Phil Murphys first inaugural address. In it, I compared Murphys inaugural speech to Chris Christies. I pointed out how Christie used I and Murphy used we. I showed how Murphy spent a lot more time saying thank you than Christie did. I showed how Murphy hinted an expansive government, while Christie argued for a retraction in government. I also wondered whether a Governor who spoke so much about collaboration and collective action could succeed in a state where the Governor has a tremendous amount of individual power.

The fact that Murphy was given the opportunity to make a second inaugural address shows that the answer to that last question is a yes. But I thought it would be interesting to compare the Governors first inaugural address to his second. This might show how Murphy has grown as Governor or perhaps at least how key allies have grown as speechwriters. It also might give some clues as to what is ahead in Murphys second term.

Setting the Stage

Before diving into my quasi-literary parsing of both speeches, it is important to note that in 2018 the speech was given in front of thousands of people. In 2022, it might as well have been done on Zoom. That makes a difference. My guess is a face-to-face speech might go for more obvious applause lines because you actually have a real audience to applause.

But the events of the day also make a difference. The 2022 speech starts with a subdued reference and a moment of silence to the New Jerseyans who have died of Covid. In 2018, Murphys began his speech with, Today, full of optimism and hope for a better future, we begin that journey together before going on to recognize the passing of Brendan Byrne. But that recognition was not with subdued silence but with an optimistic request to look up, to that flag and to the sky beyond, in remembrance of Governor Brendan Byrne.

More Deeply Felt Thanks

In 2018, Murphy thanked everyone in New Jersey and tried his best to thank them all by name. He thanked his opponent, he gave shout outs to cabinet members, members of the opposition and all manner of legislative leaders and often accompanied the thanks with complete sentence follow ups.

In 2022, Murphy still thanked people, but he only went really deep on Sheila Oliver and Tammy Murphy and his kids. In 2018, Murphy thanked Oliver in 84 words. In 2022, he used 191. In 2018, he thanked his wife and kids in 83 words. In 2022, he took 259 words.

In contrast, in 2018 Murphy spent 102 words thanking and naming the legislative leadership. In 2022, He did it in about 32 words. In 2018, his vanquished opponent rated 67 words of recognition. In 2022 his opponent got none.

On one hand, the number of words spent on thank you notes is probably not that important. But on the other hand, maybe it is a recognition by the Governor that his closest friend going in are likely to be his closest friends going out. The 2018 speech has the cheerleader optimism that by being nice he could bring everyone to his side. The 2022 speech maybe recognizes that even with boundless optimism he cant win everyone over.

Still Stronger and Fairer

Both inaugural addresses are filled with references to building a New Jersey that is Stronger and Fairer. But even so there is a I think notable shift in who Murphy sees as being in need of a stronger and fairer New Jersey and how he can help.

In Murphys 2018 speech he singled out people and groups that need special attention and care. Among others Murphy calls out Millennials, Seniors, Differently Abled, LGBTQm women, veterans and minority owned businesses, and immigrants as all needing help. He talked about job creation but focused on the need for higher wages and new training programs that were all geared to the less fortunate and the poor. He talks about criminal justice reform, the need for affordable housing and frames both in language of giving, providing and helping those who have been oppressed. The 2018 speech is about using the power of government to provide goods to specific people in need.

In 2022, he talks about families. He talks about passing on a better life to our children, all our children. He argues that the 9.3 million people in New Jersey are an extended family. In 2022, the stronger fairer New Jersey makes sure everyone gets a fair shot but also that everyone live up to their responsibility to do their fair share. The 2022 speech is less specific both in terms of the exact groups that he wants to help and exactly how he wants to help them. The 2022 speech seeks to connect all of New Jersey together as a family that can and will work together to make it a better place.

Phil Murphy Patriot

Perhaps the biggest difference between the two speeches is in Murphys use of patriotism as a theme. In 2018, the closest he got to talking about patriotism was the Byrne flag reference and when begged people not to leave the state arguing that for those who stay planting your flag in New Jersey will have been one of the smartest decisions you ever made.

In 2022, the concluding section, the defacto crescendo of the speech, is all about taking the concept of Patriotism back from being solely owned by right-wing Republicans. Murphy passionately argues that voting, fighting for good government and standing up for fairness are patriotic acts. He frames this concept of patriotism against a backdrop of a dangerous, dysfunctional do-nothing federal government, that should look to New Jersey as a model for how to do things the American way. At one point Murphy even says, to be an American is a privilege, to be a New Jerseyan is an honor.

The idea that it is possible to be progressive and patriotic has been a debate in many academic and progressive circles. Some scholars and activists argue that modern day progressives spend too much time placing race at the center of political debates and policy choices. These folks argue that more attention needs to be given to class and economic differences. Other scholars and activists argue that race is such a central determining factor in outcomes that until systemic racism is dealt with, other issues are less pressing. To be clear, race and class both matter, it is just a question of which deserves priority when seeking significant social change.

The concept of Patriotism is a central part of this debate. Poor and working-class voters are often extremely patriotic in part because the poor and working class make up the majority of our military and always have. Many of these voters (especially the white ones) run away from progressive candidates who seem to them unpatriotic and focused primarily on identity politics. This is true even if the economic redistributive policies championed by progressives might make more sense to their pocketbooks. The central academic and perhaps practical question is whether or not progressives should fight to redefine patriotism as a progressive value or is that battle (and voters who prioritize patriotism) lost forever?

No one fights harder for patriotism as a progressive value than New Jerseys own Bruce Springsteen. He has an uncanny ability to be deeply patriotic towards America while at the same time recognizing when it often doesnt live up to its high ideals.

I have no idea of Murphy was thinking about this academic debate, and he is certainly no Springsteen but Ill be damned if he wasnt fighting to redefine patriotism as a progressive value in his second inaugural speech. One speech is not enough to know if Governor Murphy will continue channeling his inner Bruce in his second term. But it certainly was different and new and worth watching.

Matthew Hale, PhD

Associate Professor Department of Political Science and Public Affairs

Seton Hall University

(Visited 247 times, 250 visits today)

More:
Channeling the Boss: Phil Murphy the Progressive Patriot - InsiderNJ

Kudlow predicts Martin Luther King Jr.s vision will triumph over theories that try to divide Americans.

Today we celebrate Martin Luther King Day and the man who delivered one of the most important and famous speeches in American History.

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."

This is a thought that I would assume all Americans regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, political party could agree with. And indeed should agree with.

But it is dismaying to me that a growing number of far-left, woke progressives in the name of so-called 'equity' have attempted to subvert MLK's brilliant statement, by moving us toward a society where solving the remnants of racism leads to ever more racism.

ON MLK DAY, YELLEN SAYS US ECONOMY HAS NEVER WORKED FAIRLY FOR BLACK AMERICANS

I'm speaking particularly of critical race theory which seeks racial divisions and routinely denounces color blindness as 'White supremacy' or 'White privilege,' or for that matter, Black victimization.

These ideas of reverse racism and Black victimization and attacks on people with White skin not only run completely against what Reverend King envisioned, it's something that provides the greatest harm to children in school where unfortunately critical race theory is being taught by too many left-wing teachers across the country.

One of the brightest spots in this story was newly elected Virginia governor Glenn Youngkin, who Saturday banned CRT in Virginia schools, and all during his campaign insisted that parents run the schools, not boards of education or teacher's unions. Or for that matter, left-wing federal bureaucrats in the D.C. swamp. Good for him.

And if you step back a moment, as the NY Post editorialized today, the civil rights movement has had many, many successes since Reverend King's tragic assassination in the late sixties. Two years ago, when I was in government, and rioting broke out across the country, and the woke CRT cry of systemic racism reached its zenith I would try to argue, "wait a minute, we just elected an African American president for two terms who garnered 80 million White votes just a few years ago." Critics never had an answer for that, but it's such a remarkable fact.

And African Americans routinely serve in the cabinet, the Supreme Court, the Senate, the House, state governors, legislatures. Our election system undoubtedly could stand with some improvements, but in the last six or seven decades, minority progress has been enormous; that is, African American progress.

NOVAK DJOKOVIC LOSES OUT ON BIG PAYDAY, SHOT AT TENNIS HISTORY AFTER DEPORTATION

Civil rights laws were passed in my lifetime that did enormous good, and more good can undoubtedly come to our imperfect institutions as long as we invoke some civility in the discussions and some common sense in the solutions.

As a young man, I came to believe that civil rights and equality on the basis of merit and character was really a matter of common sense and fairness. American common sense and American fairness. It was the right thing to do. And our great American democracy has been doing it. And will do more of it.

There are still rotten apples left, no question about it. There are still pockets of prejudice. But look where we've come since Reverend King's speech is remarkable.

You might want to acknowledge, look where we've come since Abraham Lincoln. And you might want to also acknowledge, look where we've come since the Declaration of Independence.

Some editorialists are saying that today's left would actually oppose Dr. King. Unfortunately, that may be true. But I think woke CRT, racial hatred by a relatively small minority will fade away. Parents are winning in schools, police are winning in public safety and security, and I think key points made by Sen. Tim Scott about Black economic and financial progress are very important.

Following the Trump tax cuts, unemployment fell across the board for all Americans. Importantly, minority unemployment for Blacks, Hispanics, Asians and women fell to record lows or near record lows. Poverty, especially child poverty fell to record lows.

Underserved minority areas are the biggest beneficiaries of this kind of economic progress. Opportunity zones were successfully set up to use tax incentives in low-income areas. According to the GAO, in 2019 alone $29 billion of new capital went into these underserved areas. Generational wealth creation is another key point from Sen. Scott.

GET FOX BUSINESS ONTHE GO BY CLICKING HERE

Of course the worst crime is in minority areas. And it is Blacks and other minorities who are now in full revolt against crazy ideas like defunding the police.

The sad state of our urban public education systems can be repaired with more and more school choice. Whether public school choice, or private school choice, or religious school choice.

These policy changeswill fulfill the Martin Luther King vision of living in a nation where people will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. As an American optimist, I always want to emphasize positive achievements, positive policies and positive attitudes.

I think these crazy, woke, critical race theory leftists are the real racists in our society today. And I truly believe their vision will be soundly defeated while Martin Luther King's will triumph.

This article is adapted from Larry Kudlow's opening commentary on the January 17, 2022, edition of "Kudlow."

Go here to read the rest:
Kudlow: It is dismaying that a growing number of woke progressives have attempted to subvert MLK's mission - Fox Business

Eighteen months after Sen. Bernie Sanders first introduced legislation to ensure everyone in the U.S. would receive face masks to protect against Covid-19, the White House on Wednesday followed public health guidance by announcing it will make N95s available for free nationwide.

"It's starting to work. Demand more. Demand better."

Drawing from the Strategic National Stockpile, which now has 737 million domestically-manufactured N95 masks after shortages at the beginning of the pandemic, the Biden administration will supply 400 million of the nonsurgical respirators to pharmacies and community health centers across the country later this week. The White House is calling the plan the "largest deployment of personal protective equipment in U.S. history."

The N95s, which can filter out 95% of airborne particles when used correctly, will be available by the end of next week, according to the New York Times.

Sanders praised the White House for heeding warnings that cloth masks may not provide sufficient protection against the Omicron variant, calling the move "a good first step."

According to NBC News, there has been division in the administration regarding how far officials should go in urging Americans to use the respirators.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky only recently updated the agency's guidance regarding the superior effectiveness of N95s versus cloth masks, and warned in recent days that people who don't like the fit of the respirators may stop masking altogether.

Sanders, who reintroduced his Masks for All Act last week, vehemently disagreed with Walensky on CNN, sending what Dr. Abraar Karan, an infectious disease doctor at Stanford University, called "a clear, concise message" about upgrading masks.

The Biden administration's deployment of N95s comes as Covid-19 cases have been rising for several weeks, driven by the Omicron variant. The seven-day average for daily new cases reached 1,700 on Monday and modelers say between 50,000 and 300,000 Americans could die of Covid-19 before the wave is expected to end in mid-March.

But Karan rejected the notion that the N95s are reaching Americans too late to make a difference in public health outcomes, especially considering warnings from experts that continued vaccine apartheid is likely to result in new variants cropping up around the world and causing new surges in the United States.

"If you think we'll never need masks again, I'd say that prediction hasn't worked out too well," said Karan.

As the administration announced the distribution of N95s, officials also launched a website where Americans can order four free rapid Covid-19 tests per household. That program follows an overhaul of the White House's strategy regarding testing after Press Secretary Jen Psaki was widely denounced for openly mocking a reporter's suggestion that the U.S. government could and should provide tests to all Americans.

Two weeks after Psaki suggested the proposal was unrealistic, the White House responded to pressure from public health experts and political observers by announcing it would make 500 million tests free to the public.

Dr. Rick Bright, an immunologist who issued early warnings about the Covid-19 pandemic to the Trump administration in January 2020, said the White House's recent policy shifts regarding masks and tests are a sign that Americans and public health experts should "demand more" and "demand better" from the federal government.

After the recent successes, Bright asked, "can we upgrade ventilation and air filtration in schools, businesses, and transportation?"

Continued here:
Catching Up With Progressives, Biden to Provide N95s Nationwide - Common Dreams