Mediaboss Marketing

Forecasting the aftermath of the current crisis is nearly impossible, but here is one prediction you can take to the bank: However deep the economic carnage and regardless of its source, those who seek to drive this country towards socialism will exploit it for all its worth.

President TrumpDonald John TrumpTrump orders US troops back to active duty for coronavirus response Trump asserts power to decide info inspector general for stimulus gives Congress Fighting a virus with the wrong tools MORE recently declared himself a wartime president, as well he should. He is fighting an unprecedented two-front domestic war one a health crisis, the other economic. In the coming days, the economy will further decline, perhaps in unprecedented ways. And since economic upheaval usually precedes political upheaval, he will soon need to fight a third front: the inevitable propagandizing that will flow from forces of the far left who will lay many resulting economic inequities, real or perceived, at the feet of free markets and capitalism.

The catalyst for the ascendancy of socialism in our recent politics was the financial crisis of 2008. In its wake sparked by Occupy Wall St., encouraged by hard leftists and enabled by the media a majority ofmillennials and Gens X, Y and Z now look favorably upon the movement, according to most polls. They were the base that put a Democratic socialist within a hairs breadth of the Democratic presidential nomination. And because political views formed in youth tend to last a lifetime, this voting bloc will be the pig in the electoral snake for decades to come.

If the economic blow of the Great Recession was able to catalyze such a breathtaking lurch leftward, imagine what two in a row in less than half a generation might unleash on our body politic. Socialists and progressives must be salivating at the prospect of the potential for a one-two punch.

So, brace yourself for the emergence of yet another generation of those intrigued by the false promises of socialism. Ominously, this will coincide with the natural decline of the elderly, the last demographic to understand, overwhelmingly, the abhorrence of socialism.

Will Trump rise to such a fight? I am not holding my breath. He is a warrior, yes. It is a source of his appeal. But he thrives on bludgeoning opponents personally, not in nuance and appeals to higher principle which this fight will require.

His adversaries will be nimble and guerilla-like since socialists already live every day on a wartime footing. Whether originalists Marx and Engels, revolutionaries Lenin and Castro, or modernists Bernie SandersBernie SandersHillicon Valley: Apple rolls out coronavirus screening app, website | Pompeo urged to crack down on coronavirus misinformation from China | Senators push FTC on price gouging | Instacart workers threaten strike Overnight Energy: Court upholds Trump repeal of Obama fracking rule | Oil price drop threatens fracking boom | EPA eases rules on gasoline sales amid coronavirus The Hill's Campaign Report: Sanders pushes on in 2020 race MORE and AOC, a common thread amongst them all has been to pounce upon every inequity for maximum political impact.

Inequities on a scale that may exceed the financial crisis will abound in the days ahead. So, look for progressives to seize upon them as the true fruits of capitalism, and re-issue the siren call of socialism. Look for the Trojan Horse temptation of state-sponsored security at the expense of freedom, innovation and growth. Overflowing hospitals? Time for Medicare for all. Joblessness and bankruptcies? Time for Universal Basic Income.

And look for the made-for-Instagram moments where AOC, Bernie and other opportunists will make great hay and stoke class warfare, the rocket fuel of all socialists. When a Southampton socialite is filmed at the butchers counter ordering, in full Marie Antoinette style, to sell me the entire cabinet!, demands for a Wealth Tax and other state confiscations will surely follow.

There will be winners in this mess. Private jet travel, the ultimate self-quarantine, is in high demand. Big Tech is king as remote work and in-home entertainment drive demand for broadband connectivity. Food distribution is humming from servicing a population now eating three meals a day at home. Amazon is hiring thousands to meet demand from folks avoiding stores and malls.

But to the left, winners are not exemplars of a vibrant, nimble private sector providing value and service in a time of great need. They are simply the rich getting richer. They are to be scrutinized, regulated, and gouged of ill-gotten profit.

The most dangerous propagandizing from the left will come if the number of U.S. COVID-19 infections, and our economic dislocations, exceed Chinas experience. That would lend credence to their predictable and seductive yet insidious suggestion that central planners have the best tools to protect humans from themselves. Never mind that the cause of U.S. business dislocations will have been the government and its mandated business shutdown.

As we sit in our homes watching people die and savings destroyed as the economy melts, it may be hard to fathom that this third front might actually prove the more existential fight for our country. But if we lose, and yet another generation falls for what some have called the Big Lie of socialism, then founder Ben Franklins warning of our Republics fragility may prove hauntingly prophetic.

Emil W. Henry, Jr., served as U.S. TreasuryAssistantSecretary from 2005-2007. He is CEO and managing partner of Henry Tiger LLC and Tiger Infrastructure Partners, a private equity firm.

The rest is here:
Will coronavirus launch the second wave of socialism? | TheHill - The Hill

Even though its clear that democratic socialist Sen. Bernie SandersBernie SandersHillicon Valley: Apple rolls out coronavirus screening app, website | Pompeo urged to crack down on coronavirus misinformation from China | Senators push FTC on price gouging | Instacart workers threaten strike Overnight Energy: Court upholds Trump repeal of Obama fracking rule | Oil price drop threatens fracking boom | EPA eases rules on gasoline sales amid coronavirus The Hill's Campaign Report: Sanders pushes on in 2020 race MORE (I-Vt.) cannot wrest the Democratic presidential nomination away from former vice president Joe BidenJoe BidenFighting a virus with the wrong tools Trump bucks business on Defense Production Act Overnight Health Care Presented by PCMA US coronavirus cases hit 100,000 | Trump signs T stimulus package | Trump employs defense powers to force GM to make ventilators | New concerns over virus testing MORE, a lot of people remain concerned that America is heading in a socialist direction. They may take Sanderss popularity as a sign that others want to change fundamental institutions such as free markets and property rights. But people may want to take a step back. The term socialism has become so confused in this debate that it does not have a clear policy meaning; its use, rather, is a sign that socialism sounds positive to a number of Americans.

When Sanders says, What democratic socialism is about is saying, Lets use the federal government to protect the interests of working families, he probably doesnt mean that the government needs to control industry and abolish private property. He has called for the government to pay for a lot of things through taxes, but thats well short of nationalizing private industry. Candidates in presidential primaries often promote the policies that appeal to their ideal voters andtest the edges of the Overton Window of political possibilities. Or, to put it another way, its difficult to know exactly which definition of democratic socialism Sanders envisions.

It is important, though, to try to understand what people hear, in addition to what candidates intend. And people think several different things when they hear about socialism.

There is a textbook definition of socialism as an economic system: The state controls the means of production. But thats not what everyone thinks of when theyre told about socialism.

A 2018 Gallup poll asked, What is your understanding of the term socialism? The most frequent response was that it provides equal standing, equal rights, or equal distribution, a position held by 23 percent of people surveyed. But thats about equality, not the standard textbook definition of socialism. Given that the most frequently given answer in the poll isnt about who owns the means of production, its hard to say that most people think of state control of the economy when they say they think well of socialism.

The second most frequent response was not to express an opinion. That seems like a smart response when any discussion of a word is packed with misunderstanding.

Other major contenders included 17 percent, with a definition close to the textbook one; 10 percent, with more government; 6 percent, with communism or modified communism; and 6 percent, with being more social. So people understand the term in a number of different ways.

A 2014 Reason-Rupe poll found a similar result in a poll of people ages 18 to 29. It found that respondents were more sympathetic than the overall population to the term socialism. But they still preferred a free-market system over a government-managed economy by a 2-to-1 margin. That is, when they heard socialism, they had a more positive reaction to the term, but they did not buy into the idea that the government should own businesses.

Perhaps that positive association comes from living after the Cold War, when socialism isnt the threat it used to be. Older people, though, still have a more negative reaction to the word.

When politicians and commentators speak of socialism positively, maybe their intent is to appeal to the people who react to socialism positively and disregard everyone else. Thus, it becomes a term that divides people, rather than taps into a common meaning. Socialism is one concept to the people who have a positive view of it, but a different one to people who have a negative view.

This shows up in polling results as well. According to another Gallup poll, 43 percent of Americans think that socialism would be good for the country and 51 percent think that it would be bad. That is not an even split, but given the dispute around the essential characteristics of socialism, it can mean that the term divides people into its supporters and its opposition.

The people on the right may consider socialism to be a snarl term a word meant to convey a negative feeling. To them, socialists should be dismissed as fools who would destroy the American way, as socialism means government control of the economy.

The people on the left may consider socialism to be a purr term a word meant to convey a positive feeling. To them, socialism is where enlightened people want to be headed because it means more government support for the working class.

The word is a tool to distinguish oneself from others and unify allies, but it is not useful to persuade. People have an opinion about socialism, regardless of what others mean by the term.

This ought to be positive news for the people on the right. If socialism is on the rise, it is unlikely that it means what they fear.

There is a lesson for people on the left, too. If they want their ideas to appeal to those outside of the left, they should argue for their policies without using the label socialist. It repels the people they should want to persuade.

People should extend goodwill to others and try to use words in the same way as the people they seek to persuade. And we should also acknowledge that a term may be heard in ways which are unintended. There is a lot of work to be done to bridge the intellectual division surrounding the word socialism.

James M. Hohman is director of fiscal policy at Mackinac Center for Public Policy, a research and educational institute located in Midland, Mich. Follow him on Twitter @JamesHohman.

Read this article:
Will Americans' embrace of socialism wane without Sanders? | TheHill - The Hill

The economy in this country looks to be headed into a tailspin because of the COVID-19 crisis. Government action in the manner proposed by the Trump administration and both chambers of the U.S. Congress looks to be more than necessary for us citizens to keep our heads above water.

But understand this, special loans and payments to small businesses, bailouts to big corporations like airline companies, even government checks mailed to individuals without any requirement for repayment is socialism.

Payouts like this are not part of free-market capitalism. There is no mechanism in pure capitalism to guarantee recovery from disasters. Now, present considerations of payouts from the government are in keeping with socialist democracy, rather than socialist authoritarianism, because those making the decisions about to whom payments will be made and how much should be allotted are elected officials. Im grateful to them and to the ideals of socialist democracy.

So, be ashamed, all you pundits and fear-mongers who contributed to the demise of Bernie Sanders candidacy through red-baiting.

Visit link:
Stimulus? Spell it socialism, by Tom Weldon | Letters To The Editor - The Keene Sentinel

Corbynistas have reached a new low. They now hope that a horrible virus will help them to achieve what they failed to achieve at the ballot box. They are openly describing Covid-19 as a phenomenon that vindicates their worldview and which might even usher in the political vision contained in their 2019 manifesto. And judging from the gusto with which they are partaking in this grim opportunism, this ghoulish use of a terrible virus to promote their political agenda, they have no idea just how anti-democratic and even anti-human it all sounds.

Jeremy Corbyn himself has moved to the forefront of Covid opportunism. He took the opportunity of one of his last major interviews as Labour leader he formally steps down next week to say that the Covid-19 crisis proves that he was absolutely right in terms of the ideas he has been pushing in recent years. In the words of the BBC, with whom Corbyn was talking, he feels vindicated by the virus crisis. He argues that the unprecedented intervention of the state into economic and everyday life, as spearheaded by Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak in recent days, shows that the government has come around to a lot of [my] position and realised that we must invest in the state.

Im sorry, but if your overarching thought upon observing a crisis of this magnitude is to feel vindicated, almost to welcome the crisis as an opportunity to promote your political worldview, there is something wrong with you. We have got used to Corbyn and his cheerleaders saying they really won elections that they actually lost witness their unhinged excitement about coming second in 2017, or their claim that they lost the election but won the argument in 2019 but this politicisation of a virus as a means of bigging-up their lame state socialism really is something else. It is the weaponisation of disease to political ends. It is the socialism of ghouls.

Corbyn was only saying in milder terms what Labour chairman Ian Lavery said more openly a few days ago. In a talk to thousands of young Labour members virtually, of course Lavery described the Covid-19 crisis as a great opportunity for Labour. [W]hen something like this happens, were going to see lots of our own dying as a consequence, he said, but it is also a great opportunity to show why Labour is best when it gets on the front foot and best when it brings people together. Many people are of course responding to this crisis with a great sense of social solidarity, helping their neighbours and assisting the NHS. But Lavery is talking about something else. To him, this could be a propaganda victory, a means of showing that Labour is good. He sees a party opportunity in this human disaster.

In the liberal media, meanwhile, there is much musing over how Covid-19 will propel Britain in a more socialist direction. A writer for the Guardian sounds almost gleeful when he says that matters of life and death often cause more drastic shifts in policy than economic indicators ever can. And Covid-19 might just reopen a sense of possibility for the statist left, apparently. Corbynistas have openly celebrated reports that private schools could be hit hard by the Covid-19 crisis and some may even need to close, with not a passing thought for the thousands of teachers, IT workers, cleaners and others who would lose their jobs as a result. Ash Sarkar, the pseudo-urban spokesperson for Corbynisms middle-class youths, says: Coronavirus said you gonna GET a Labour manifesto whether you like it or not.

Of course, that is partly tongue in cheek. But only partly. We know this for a fact because this is merely a cruder, more callous version of what much of the degraded left that makes up the Corbyn movement has been saying over the past couple of weeks: that this sickness could help to deliver Corbynomics and Corbyn-style politics to the UK. Whether you like it or not that is key here. These people really do spy in this disease a means of circumventing the pesky populace, who so thoroughly rejected the Malthusian, identitarian and anti-Brexit worldview of the Corbyn set in the election in December. If the people refuse to approve our political outlook, maybe germs will do it instead? Who needs democracy when you have disease. This is genuinely a new low for the British left.

The idea that what we are currently living through is something to celebrate is ridiculous. Most people accept the need for extraordinary measures right now. Most of us, apart from a few free-market ideologues, welcome the huge government bailout of the people. But we all want this to be temporary. We want an end to the lockdown, we want to earn our living, and we want to go back to being free, connected citizens. If Corbynistas think their vision is embodied in this locked-down, atomised country in which working people can no longer work and vast numbers have been turned into objects of state largesse overnight, then that only shows how morally impoverished and politically dispiriting their vision was. Being largely from the public-sector or academic middle classes, they might think that a nation under lockdown and reliant on welfare is a good thing, but the rest of desire agency, work, community and life. The more they discuss this terrible situation as proof that they were right, the more we know they were wrong.

Their utterly un-revolutionary nature has been exposed. The idea that an objective condition such as the arrival of a new virus could transform society in a more progressive direction (as they see it) is nonsense. People change society, not diseases. It wasnt the Black Deaths arrival in England in 1348 that eventually led to social and political improvements it was the Peasants Revolt a few decades later when people rose up against the stringent post-Black Death economic measures introduced by the authorities. But its hardly any wonder that Corbynistas see pandemics rather than peasants as the true force for change, since we know from the past five years just how much they loathe and distrust ordinary people. We have disappointed them maybe the virus wont.

Brendan ONeill is editor of spiked and host of the spiked podcast, The Brendan ONeill Show. Subscribe to the podcast here. And find Brendan on Instagram: @burntoakboy

View post:
The Socialism of Ghouls - Spiked

JEREMY CORBYNS opening of the opposition day debate on community, following his last Prime Ministers Questions as head of the Labour Party, shows how much the labour movement is going to miss his leadership.

The coronavirus pandemic has exposed how hollow are the values drummed into Britain by four decades of neoliberalism.

It is a matter of weeks since Home Secretary Priti Patel was redesigning our immigration system, welcoming skilledand turning a cold shoulder on unskilledworkers: a distinction which, as her Labour shadow Diane Abbott observed, she thought she could make based on how much they were paid.

As Corbyn notes, in this time of crisis, society is forced to recognise how much it relies on the refuse workers, the supermarket shelf-stackers, the delivery drivers, the cleanersand how little on the billionaire hedge-fund manager.

That we are in the midst of what has to be a collective national effort to protect people from Covid-19 is undeniable.

At the same time the crisis is highlighting deep-rooted structural problems in our economy which make the case for radical, permanent change.

Corbyn made the point powerfully with regard to homelessness: If we can house people in a crisis, then we can keep them housed when it is over.

In order to keep the wheels of capitalism turning, the government has been forced to abandon Thatcherite verities although it should be noted that Chancellor Rishi Sunaks first Budget, announced before the scale of the coronavirus crisis became clear, showed the Conservative leadership was already moving away from them.

That has involved taking a number of measures we can welcome, including the support for the wages of employees whose employersincomes are drying up announced by Sunak after late-night talks with businesses and trade unions and, belatedly, the commitment to deliver mass testing.

Its failings when it comes to these measures are equally obvious. Delays in provision of emergency support for wages are leaving staff at the mercy of unscrupulous bosses, as JD Wetherspoons Tim Martin demonstrated this week.

Millions of self-employed people have been left out of any significant support, being shunted instead into an unfit-for-purpose benefits system expressly designed to humiliate, browbeat and punish vulnerable people during the years of so-called austerity.

As for the testing kits, the government has dithered for weeks with undoubtedly lethal consequences and has still to make clear how tests are to be made available first to those who need them most.

As Labours Jonathan Ashworth notes, a panicked scramble to buy tests from high street chemists and online is the last thing we need.

But Labour needs to go further than pointing out the gaps in the governments strategy to look to how it can ensure we emerge from this pandemic a stronger and a fairer society.

It must champion and work to strengthen the collective and community responses that have seen a quarter of a million people volunteer to help the NHS in a single day and that involve people delivering food and essentials to vulnerable neighbours across our islands.

It should not engage in a competition to look tough by advocating draconian restrictions on liberty by the state, when the vast majority of unsocialbehaviour has been down to mixed messaging from the government or is exacerbated by the inflexibility of just-in-timesupply systems that see supermarkets run out of stock when a sufficient number of shoppers take the sensible precaution of buying more than usual because they have been told not to leave their homes unless absolutely necessary.

Above all, it must make the case that the shift towards state intervention in and direction of the economy is insufficient without public control and accountability.

As we redirect transport, production and supply to meet common goals, we can demonstrate the necessity of economic democracy and a socialist future.

See more here:
Coronavirus and the case for socialism - Morning Star Online