Mediaboss Marketing

If youre the kind of person who boasts about being a political independent, this may be hard to hear: Youre part of the problem.

This no doubt will come as a shock, in part because independents get such fantastic press. That in itself is odd, given that independents have no party, no official PR machine and no clear leader. They dont even have a coherent ideological platform.

In recent decades, the most prominent independent politicians have been all over the map. Illinois Rep. John Anderson, once a liberal Republican, and Texas billionaire Ross Perot ran for president as independents in 1980 and 1992, respectively. They were hardly on the same page. In October 1999, Donald Trump, who has flipped parties again and again, changed his registration from Republican to the Reform Party for his initial 2000 presidential campaign (contrary to his own mythmaking about winning the presidency the first time he tried). Avowed socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders is an independent, even though he caucuses with Democrats and runs for president in their primaries. Former wrestler, Minnesota governor and now professional crackpot Jesse Ventura has identified as an independent, too. Ditto Ralph Nader. Libertarians have also claimed the independent mantle.

Maybe you can find the theme in that pudding, but I cant.

And yet, self-declared independents are often cast as clear centrists residing in the respectable middle ground between the two parties. I think there are two reasons for this.

First, many in the media see themselves as independents; hence, they work from the assumption that independent voters are similarly wise and reasonable. Second, centrist used to apply to the category. In the 1980s and 1990s, most independents were actual swing voters. Now, not so much.

In recent years, two kinds of independents have emerged: Call them insurgents and moderates. The insurgents identify as independents, but 3 out of 4 tend to be reliable Democrat or Republican voters.

Independents who lean toward a party also tend to back that party at almost the same rate as openly partisan voters, notes Geoffrey Skelley of fivethirtyeight.com.

University of Memphis political scientist Eric Groenendyk notes that many of the most intensely partisan and polarized voters tend to not like their own party; they just think its the lesser of two evils. This makes them reliable voters against the other party but insurgents within their own.

If you paid attention in the 2000s, you could spot the insurgents. Self-declared outsiders running against the party establishment adopted the independent moniker.

Im an independent outsider who can bring real change to Washington, Steve Forbes promised in the 2000 GOP primaries.

The rise of the tea parties made the rebellion obvious. When Id speak to very right-wing tea party audiences, Id get barraged with questions about purging RINOs and Rockefeller Republicans like Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell and John Boehner, despite the fact that they were the most conservative congressional leaders of the last century.

Presidential candidates Sanders and Trump were both insurgents. The chief difference was that Trump succeeded.

The insurgent boom puts the parties in a bind. Whether or not they are nominally independents, the insurgents chase moderates out of the party. Some will defect to the other party as happened in 2020 but many of them still opt to vote for the perceived lesser of two evils come Election Day. This means the party in question never pays much of a price for catering to the crazies, and it lacks meaningful incentives to change that. If the GOP were a healthy party, its losses in the Georgia Senate runoff would have been a cautionary tale about pandering to the noisy, whiny anti-establishment insurgency.

Meanwhile, the few truly moderate independents may still act as swing voters, as some former Republicans did in 2020. But they now have little institutional power within the Democratic Party they cant pressure President Biden to live up to his centrist promises. This makes them more likely to switch back to Republicans next time around (watch what happens in the 2022 midterms), without the GOP having to do much to earn their votes.

In the end, the insurgent/independent pressure may also radicalize moderates. Rep. Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y., who just replaced Wyoming Rep. Liz Cheney as chair of the House GOP Conference, came to Washington as precisely the sort of RINO from a liberal district the insurgents once detested. But thanks to Trumps successful revolution, Stefanik (and her voters) now embrace him and his lies about the stolen election.

If true political moderates want to signal their virtue more effectively, they should stop declaring independence, pick a party, work to change it in their image and by the way remake the American center.

Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.

2021 Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

Go here to read the rest:
Guess what? Independents are part of the partisan problem | Column - Tampa Bay Times

Kemba Walker wore a Gadsden flag jacket yellow with DONT TREAD ON ME and a snake to the Celtics-Wizards play-in game last night.

The Celtics tweeted a photo of Walker in his jacket then deleted it as controversy and jokes swirled:

Originally used by colonists and directed against the British in the American Revolution, the Gadsden flag has had evolving meanings over time. Limited-government advocates have used it the last several decades, and it became especially popular with the Tea Party. Metallica had a song called Dont Tread on Me with a similar-looking snake on the album cover. A liberal character on The West Wing, Sam Seaborn, had a DONT TREAD ON ME flag in his office. Some reprehensible people have used the flag to represent their extremism, particularly in recent years. But the flag remains so mainstream, several states offer license plates with its design.

What did Walker mean by his jacket?

Walker, via CLNS Media:

Was there any message?

No.

Im kind of confused by the question.

I have no idea. The colors looked good. It went with my sneakers. Thats all.

If Walker wanted to amplify a political message, he had opportunity to do so. Instead, he did the opposite.

Its completely reasonable Walker picked the jacket only for fashion. There are more political symbols, especially considering evolving meanings, than anyone can keep up with.

Like James Harden with his Thin Blue Line mask, Walker should be taken at his word and this should be dropped as a serious issue. (Please continue with any good jokes that havent yet been made, though.)

Excerpt from:
Kemba Walker explains DONT TREAD ON ME jacket: It went with my sneakers. Thats all - NBC Sports

The GOP is in a bit of disarray.

While most of its memberscontinue to display an unwavering loyalty to former President Donald Trump, a smaller but prominent group of more than 100 Republicans are gearing up for a breakaway plan. News of the effort surfaced last week when House Republicans ousted Wyoming Rep. Liz Cheney from leadership after she repeatedly challenged Trump for falsely claiming the 2020 election was stolen from him.

Its not clear yet what Cheneys exile will mean for Republicans like her who are anti-Trump and ready for the party to move forward without the former president at the helm, but the GOPs breakup with Cheney once again raises the question of whether the party will experience an exodus (Cheney, for the record, has said shes running for reelection).

A splintering of the Republican Party has long been speculated, and while its hard to know whether this is, in fact, a turning point or an isolated incident that will soon recede from the headlines, these four scenarios are possible.

Although Cheney hasnt said publicly whether shed join this third breakaway party (she previously told the Today show she would not leave the GOP over its embrace of the former president), its entirely possible that this is her next move. The group of Republicans who have threatened to join if the GOP doesnt pull back from Trump largely fits the pattern of former officials breaking rank, but it does include some prominent former officeholders and high-ranking Republican staffers.

As far as the ideological leanings of the breakaway coalition go, political scientists I talked with told me to expect it to be composed of Trump-skeptical moderates and anti-Trumpers two of the five wings of the Republican Party Perry Bacon Jr. previously described for FiveThirtyEight. Thats to say, this isnt even close to the majority of the GOP, and reports so far say Republicans on board with this effort are generally fiscally conservative but more centrist on cultural issues. Because of this, we wouldnt be surprised if some Democrats joined this effort, too. Last year, the Pew Research Center found that conservative and moderate voters make up about half (51 percent) of the Democratic electorate, so if theres potential for this third breakaway party to have any hope of viability, it needs it to be bipartisan, too.

For this to work, youd have to bring on some Democrats, and itd be the type of people who are at odds with the more progressive wing of the party, said Robert Saldin, a political science professor at the University of Montana. That said, Saldin cautioned me that its hard to imagine flocks of Democrats moving in this direction, short of the progressive wing gaining control of the party. The type of Democrat who one could imagine linking up with the signers of that letter already has a big seat at the table in a Biden-led Democratic Party, he added.

And regarding the Republicans likely joining this effort, Saldin said, they do not constitute the beating heart of todays GOP since conservatism now is largely defined by dedication to Trump.

Another obvious stumbling block for this group is that the zero-sum, winner-take-all dynamics of U.S. elections make it nearly impossible for third parties to gain electoral traction. Plus, members would be running on an anti-Trump platform, and the former presidents approval rating among Republicans is still very high: A February Quinnipiac University survey found that most Republicans (75 percent) still want Trump to play a prominent role in the party even if his standing may be slipping among Republicans. Trump, of course, hasnt ruled out running for president again either, which could further complicate things for members of the party who are ready to move on. But even if Trump doesnt run, Republicans who have shown strong support for the former president like Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis have strong support among the activist base. (Its still too early, though, for polls to gauge whether theyre actually viable candidates for 2024.)

What were talking about here is an extension of the Never-Trump phenomenon, and that did prove quite effective in carving out a space for itself in the media and op-ed pages and the cable shows, and I could certainly see that continuing, Saldin said. The problem is, I dont see a whole lot of voters who would be attracted to this. Thats the challenge.

Of course, setting up a third party is hard, so we could likely see an uptick in the number of candidates who run as independents. Cheney, for her part, hasnt indicated that she plans to take this route either. But if her standing among GOP voters worsens or if party leaders continue to push her aside, the pressure to leave the party could become insurmountable. Consider that she already faces at least six primary opponents and Trump has said hell back a Republican challenger to her. In other words, if Trumps grip on the party remains ironclad, it might make more sense for Cheney and other Republicans tired of the former president to run as independent candidates.

Working in Cheneys favor is voters increasing dissatisfaction with the two major political parties, and as Gallup has reported, the share of Americans who identify as independents has surged. This, in theory, provides an opening for someone like Cheney, as independents are more likely than Republicans (by 69 percent to 23 percent, per an April CNN/SSRS survey) to acknowledge that Biden legitimately won the election. So, if some voters are truly dissatisfied with the state of politics and democracy (which polls show is consistently the case), there may be a real opportunity for more independent candidates.

And while, historically, third-party candidates havent fared well, the independent candidates who have won their races (think Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders or Maine Sen. Angus King) were well-known, not unlike Cheney. Plus, she wouldnt be the first Republican with high name recognition to not run on the partys ticket: Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski, for example, ran as a write-in candidate after losing to a Tea Party-backed candidate in the 2010 primaries and won reelection.

That said, as FiveThirtyEight elections analyst Geoffrey Skelley previously reported, few Americans are actually independent; most Americans identify with one of the two major parties. And, similar to the idea of a breakaway GOP group, its also not immediately clear if enough Democrats would support these candidates which would likely be needed for them to win, Saldin told me or if this would just cause Republicans to start losing seats because the vote would be split.

So far we havent seen any form of effectiveness from Never-Trumpers, said Bernard Tamas, a political science professor at Valdosta State University. But short of them running against the Republican Party, I doubt that theyre going to have any impact at all. In other words, trying to change the party from within has completely failed at this point, so in some ways, the only option anti-Trump Republicans have left is to run as independents or third-party candidates but its an open question as to whether theres enough support among voters for this strategy to work.

This scenario was more in vogue earlier this year, when Trump was actively exploring whether to form a third party (hes since said he wont). But theres still a possibility that the former president will break away from the traditional GOP or that someone like him will lead a Patriot or MAGA-esque party that more fully embraces Trumps politics.

Marjorie Hershey, a political science professor at Indiana University, Bloomington, told me its unlikely this will happen, though, due to Trumps hold on the GOP already. Hes basically the Republican Party, she said, so I dont see any reason for him to run as a third party.

Most Republicans in Congress agree that Trump is the undisputed leader of the party, and other Republicans have had trouble emulating him with the same degree of success. (The New York Timess Elaina Plott made this argument explicitly in her coverage of the Conservative Political Action Conference earlier this year.)

But, should the former president decide to take this route and form a party separate from the GOP, hed certainly have support. A February Suffolk University/USA Today poll found that 46 percent of Trump voters would leave the party in favor of a Trump-created third party. And half of the respondents said they wanted the GOP to take a stronger pro-Trump stance, even if that meant losing the support of establishment Republicans. A separate Politico/Morning Consult poll taken in February found similar support: 54 percent of Republican voters said they would support a hypothetical Trump bid in the 2024 primary, and 59 percent said he should play a major role in the party going forward.

Of course, its also possible that the drama with Cheney is a mere blip and the GOP will continue down its current path where members are judged for their fealty to Trump and those deemed insufficiently loyal are either booted from their leadership roles or forced to navigate their place in the party without strong political allies.

Based on recent events, this scenario seems the most likely, especially since the GOP barely tried to rebrand itself after suffering losses in 2020 and, in state legislatures, lawmakers still show an unwavering loyalty to Trumpism. Trump continues to dominate the Republican Partys rhetoric, agenda, and fundraising. For instance, at the state level, Republicans are going all in on pushing restrictive voting bills to perpetuate the Big Lie, and at the national level, they are still embracing Trump as their leader. At CPAC, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz even declared triumphantly that Trump aint goin anywhere.

One big reason why Trump will likely continue to influence the party at least in the short term is that hes successfully won over non-college-educated white voters, a powerful bloc of the GOPs base. Plus, the ousting of Cheney and subsequent elevation of New York Rep. Elise Stefanik to the No. 3 GOP role in the House shows that being a congressional Republican today is no longer about possessing conservative bona fides but about blindly adhering to Trumpism.

By default were stuck with what we have, and the shape of that is pretty clear, Hershey said. The Democrats are going to remain a fairly big tent and left of center, and the Republican Party is going to be defined by whether or not its adherents are passionate enough about Donald Trump to accept basically everything he does and says.

And, at least right now, its hard to imagine any Republican being successful at the national level without having Trumps backing. Perhaps the most obvious sign of the current times? Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said he would absolutely support Trump if he won the nomination in 2024 even though in February Trump said in a publicly released statement that the senator was a dour, sullen, and unsmiling political hack.

Again, only time will tell where the Republican Party will go from here, and not every GOP voter is convinced the party needs to change. But at least in the near future, its possible some type of fissure will form between the part of the Republican Party that wants to remain loyal to the former president and the part that thinks its time to change. But as Saldin told me, it seems so far that its going to be very difficult for the party to move beyond Trump. [Trump is] not going to willingly depart the scene, thats for sure, and, at least right now, hes making it hard for the party to move on.

Read this article:
How The Republican Party Could Splinter (Or Stay The Same) After Liz Cheneys Ousting - FiveThirtyEight

Conservative comedian Steven Crowder filed notice last week of a lawsuit against YouTube, claiming, This is the big one, boys and girls.

Crowders May 14 filing follows his second strike in as many months. In March, YouTube demonetized Crowders channel and issued hisfirst demerit of 2021on grounds that one of his videos contained COVID-19misinformation. In April, Crowderearned strike two under the pretext ofharassment and cyberbullying.

One more infraction in the designated 90-day window and he will be permanently cut off from his 5 million YouTube followers.

Crowder is polemicalhe is, after all, a comedianbut hisundue scrutinyignores a morass of unpunished violations that proliferate on YouTube all around him.

If the coronavirus misinformation standard were applied consistently, Dr. Anthony Faucisannouncementin March 2020 that there is no reason to [walk] around with a mask would have been struck from the platform during the height of the pandemic.

If the harassment and cyberbullying standard were applied uniformly to comparable accounts, left-of-center comedian Bill Mahersgleeover billionaire businessman David Kochs death would no longer be searchable on Mahers shows channel.

Other platforms are just as guilty.

Thetweetsof Irans supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, remain active despite Twitterssuppression of informationon the New York Posts Hunter Biden-Ukrainestory.

Drug cartels advertiseon Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok. Chinese Communist Partly spokesmen churn outwokeandcritical race theory-infused propagandaon a regular basis.AntifaandBlack Lives Matterglorify political violence, andfigureheadswhodelegitimizefree and fair elections, such as Stacey Abrams, retain blue-check status.

As such, conservative voices like Crowders should not besacrificed on the altar of Big Tech.

Yet, the fight is not about Crowder. Instead, itsa crisis of the tech titans own making. Inconsistent enforcement of vague rules, the opacity of content-moderation practices, and a lack of recourse are the hallmarks of Big Tech today.

Crowders latest legal move points to a broader, more pernicious trend taking hold in Silicon Valley and beyond. (Hes threatened tofilesuit against Big Tech before, as recently as February.)

The evolution proceeded slowly at first. When platformsbannedgratuitous-chaos agents, such as Alex Jones and Milo Yiannopoulos, many conservatives were reluctant to defend them, even on principle. Now, social media companies are sprinting away with the goal posts.

What began as an effort to ban fringe outlets such as Jones Infowars has rapidly expanded to the restriction of traditional, conservative views.

Can pro-life group Live Action post onPinterest? No. What of Ryan Andersons conservative take on gender identity in his 2019 book When Harry Became Sally?Bootedfrom Amazon. The Northern Virginia Tea Party was even acasualtyof email delivery service Mailchimps misinformation policy early this year.

Similarly, non-conservatives such asCanadian free speech activist Lindsay Shepherd, who refused to conform to todays woke litmus tests, are in many tech companies crosshairs.

Such censorship of mainstream voices reveals the pitfalls of allowing these platforms to determine what is legitimately fringe, not to mention truth itself.

Its clear that if left unchecked, these companies and their employees will continue to narrow the bounds of acceptable discourseon one side of the political spectrum only.

Americans can and should hit back. Its past time for concrete, actionable solutions.

Proposals, likethoseworking their way through state legislatures across the country, must empower the public to hold these companies accountable for their disproportionate application of their own standards.

In tandem, Congress should address sweeping Section 230 protections through focusedreform.

But most importantly, conservatives should amplify efforts to invigorate a genuinely competitive market withalternativesandtechnical solutionsat all levels of the tech stack.

Restoring the balance of power between the tech companies and their users is an experiment worth conducting. Its only our culture of free expression thats at stake.

This piece originally appeared in The Daily Signal.

Read this article:
Steven Crowder Is Suing YouTube Over Vague Rules, but It's Not Just About Him - Heritage.org

Johnson is a United Methodist pastor, the author of "Holding Up Your Corner: Talking About Race in Your Community" (Abingdon Press, 2017) and vice president of the Bridge Alliance, which houses The Fulcrum.

Some months ago, I accepted the challenge posed by Eric Liu to wrestle with the question: "What does it mean to be an engaged American in today's divided political landscape, and how do we restore hope in our country?" Through Liu's Citizen University Civic Seminary I was introduced to civic sermons. These thoughtful proclamations weave together historical texts, current events, and reflections of democracy, patriotism, citizenship and love. This is one in a series of reflections on the evolving of the nation's "civic religion."

For many, who are other-ed, it is difficult to see ourselves in this nation's founding figures like Franklin, Jay, Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison and Washington. We, who are other-ed, must strain to discern our voice and our respective stories in this nation's founding documents. The Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights speak of inalienable rights, shared socio-ethical principles and promise of liberation entitled to us all such is "freedom." The suppression of one's inalienable nature or suspension of constitutional rights forfeits our humanity and is in effect "unfreedom."

Given our nation's current socio-political climate, the time invites each of us to reimagine our responsibility to freedom as choice, cause and covenant because "it's our duty."

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Freedom is a choice that emanates from within.

Samuel Adams in 1776 affirmed, "Our unalterable resolution should be to be free."

Freedom is a condition in which people have the opportunity to speak, act and pursue happiness without unnecessary external restrictions. It means the possibility of contrary choices. Choices like to love or hate vote or abstain ... agree or disagree vehemently. Freedoms such as to assemble or associate are not unconditional, rather they are conditioned by individual choice.

C. Wright Mills provides further elaboration: "Freedom is not merely the opportunity to do as one pleases; neither is it merely the opportunity to choose between set alternatives. Freedom is, first of all, the chance to formulate the available choices, to argue over them and then, the opportunity to choose."

Our choices speak to our earnest commitments. They are in response and obedience to deepest values, greatest expectations and pressing demands revealing our individual and collective character. I concur with the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who said, "Fight for things you care about but do it in a way that will lead others to join you."

Freedom is a cause that gives rise to action acts of commitment, defense and advocacy. While the gift of freedom is inalienable, the want of freedom is instinctive. Freedom requires each of us to do something and when injustices exist that could mean fighting. We should fight not merely to be contentious or oppositional, but rather as an imperative to take part; to engage; and struggle with and for. Freedom oftentimes is not to be free, but it's what this country is about.

Of course freedom is at the forefront of the history of our country. The Boston Tea Party was a political protest that occurred in December 1773 at Griffin's Wharf in Boston, where frustrated and angry American colonists felt justified in opposing their experienced oppression. Their protest and looting is revered as the first major act of defiance to British rule over the colonists. It gave rise to a greater cause of resistance against the threat of tyranny and rallied American patriots across the 13 colonies to fight for independence.

And today the fight for freedom continues. Every injustice has awakened more people from their dream of "it's all okay." Each new death at the hand of system enforcers violates our social contract. These unjust fatalities incite a distinctly different visceral reaction. For some people, it was Trayvon Martin. For others Eric Garner or Sandra Bland. Or Charlottesville. Or Ahmaud Arbery. Or George Floyd. Or Bernie Taylor.

For me and countless others, it was Michael Brown. The streets of Ferguson, not unlike Boston, became our civic laboratory, our front lines and sanctuaries in the fight for freedom. Freedom as a cause lit up the minds and hands of founding figures, chattel slaves, abolitionists, suffragists, the civil rights and Black Power resistance fighters and activists, refugees, Dreamers and Black Lives Matter champions.

Current events remind us that democracy is fragile a volatile experiment. Also, this electoral and legislative climate reveals a democratic hallmark the vote is neither fully free or accessible to all. Expressions of political protest signal that many persons and communities are continually disregarded, dehumanized and damned by systems and practices that espouse to protect and to perpetuate liberty; yet do the opposite. Civil rights leader Howard Thurman once directed: "Ask yourself what makes you come alive, and go do that, because what the world needs is people who have come alive." And that statement deserves to be followed by another Thurman quote. "Often, to be free means the ability to deal with realities of one's own situation so as not to be overcome by them." Freedom is a cause worth fighting for!

Freedom is a covenant, a binding promise of far-reaching importance to relations between individuals, groups and nations. It has social, legal, religious and other aspects. Freedom is a divine imperative and cornerstone of our social contract that draws each of us into reflection, service, and account with and for one another. Martin Luther King Jr. said, "We ought to access our own bias, partisan politics, systemic participation and privileged patronage that we often note in others." In other words, "Every issue that threatens freedom is not our fault, but they remain our fight!"

Freedom is a covenant that invites collective embodiment and agreement requiring mutual sacrifice. An understanding that it's each of our duties. "It is our duty to fight for our freedom. It is our duty to win. We must love each other and support each other. We have nothing to lose but our chains."

From Your Site Articles

Related Articles Around the Web

Read the original here:
Freedom is part of our civic religion - The Fulcrum