Category: ideological culture

Categories
ideological culture

Upside Down and Inside Out

Brexit, Great Britain, labour, right wing, left wing, ideology,

A YouGov poll of British voters asking who should lead Parliament, conducted a week after Britain’s European Union Parliamentary elections and in advance of Prime Minister Theresa May’s June 7 departure as Tory leader, provides some shocks.

In the poll, Labour and Conservatives trail behind the Liberal Democrats* and something called The Brexit Party. This is, says YouGov’s director of political research for Great Britain, the first time that two “third parties” have polled ahead of both Labour and the Tories.

“The Liberal Democrats held the support of 24 percent of voters, while the Labour and Conservative parties were tied at 19 percent each,” The Hill summarizes. “The far-right Brexit Party came in second place, with 22 percent of voters’ support.”

In the U.K.’s European elections of the week before, the Brexit Party came out in the lead.

This is the (British) world turned upside down.

What it means for Americans is unclear, but what it means for one American news outlet apparently is crystal: the single-issue Brexit Party is “far right.”

Really? 

While the traditionally left Labour and traditionally right Tory voters are split on Brexit, The Hill sees this as somehow a left/right issue. Not obvious.

Nevertheless, The Hill insists on having its American readers see the situation in a way designed to favor one position. Because “far right” is bad, and “far left” is never used** even to label Labour’s egregious, Castro/Chavez-loving, Cuba-Venezelua-apologetic leader Jeremy Corbyn.

With cues like that, insiders keep outsiders out. 

And perhaps that’s the way to think about Brexit: as literally a matter of Insider/Outsider, with the outsiders still wanting out.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

* The year was 1922 when last a Prime Minister was not a Tory or Labour.

** I did not see it in my Google search of The Hill, anyway!

PDF for printing

Brexit, Great Britain, labour, right wing, left wing, ideology,

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
general freedom ideological culture Popular

What It Means

Goddesss of Democracy, China, freedom, protest,

The most inspiring political event of my six decades on this planet remains the pro-freedom and democracy protests of three decades ago, when for seven weeks first students and then other Chinese citizens occupied iconic, historic Tiananmen Square in Beijing.

“In the history of communist China,” said a CNN correspondent as a million people swelled into the square, “there has never been anything like this.”

The students’ demands were strikingly similar to those articulated in America’s Declaration of Independence, and their symbol was the Goddess of Democracy and Freedom, something of a replica of our Statue of Liberty.

Now, one might ask what the protestors knew of liberty and democracy. “To them,” offered Princeton Professor Perry Link, “democracy just meant ‘get off our back.’”

What, it doesn’t mean that?

“We probably don’t know what democracy is, living in China,” acknowledged student leader Wuer Kaixi, “but we have a pretty good idea what totalitarianism, what non-democracy, is.”

That totalitarian tyranny exploded late this very evening 30 years ago, when Chinese troops fired on unarmed protesters and tanks rolled; the massacre continued into the wee hours of June 4, 1989. Death counts range from 300 to several thousand, and there’s uncertainty as to whether the carnage took place in or out of the square, killing mostly workers or students. Regardless, it is all-too-typical behavior from an illegitimate regime.*

The saddest news is that, as a survivor told the South China Morning Post, “What happened [30] years ago in China . . . is still happening now in China.”

Over a million Uighur Muslims are, reportedly, confined in concentration camps right now.

What can we do? Remember, for starters.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

*Firing on one’s own citizens is far too common, and delegitimizes any regime that practices it, as I have pointed out per Nicaragua, Venezuela, and U.S.-subsidized Egypt — the list goes on and on.

PDF for printing

Goddesss of Democracy, China, freedom, protest,

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
ideological culture

The Milkshake of Human Unkindness

milkshake, political violence, New Republic, Nigel Farage, Brexit, right, immigration,

“The biggest topic in British political circles on Monday . . . was milkshakes,” writes Mike Ford in The New Republic, “or, rather, one milkshake in particular. . . .”

Milkshake, you ask?

Yes. Milkshake. 

The shake in question “was lobbed by a bystander in Newcastle at Nigel Farage, a Brexit Party candidate in the European Parliament elections later this week.” And Mr. Ford goes on to note that infamous Internet figures Tommy Robinson and Carl “Sargon of Akkad” Benjamin (the latter inaccurately dubbed “alt-right”) have received multiple hits of thrown cold, frothy confections.

It is “a thing.” A meme — a replicable operation.

Burger King has even encouraged the fad, if in a bizarrely mercenary way.

“Throwing a milkshake at someone is rude at worst,” Ford asserts. “It may also qualify as assault in some jurisdictions, especially in the United States.” That second sentence contradicts the first. It is assault “at worst.”

Ford’s op-ed, entitled “Why Milkshaking Works,” has a tagline: “The far right fears nothing more than public humiliation.”

Really? Look, no one wants the inconvenience of these stupid attacks, but it is the unhingedness of the left that shines through, here — a threatening, punching, shouting-down, spilling-upon movement that I suspect mainly grows the ranks of the anti-left.* 

The New Republic has long been a progressive rag: the “new” in the title referred to the magazine’s support for progressivism.

Fitting, then, to see it cheer on, this week, the idiotic, unkind extremism of current progressive culture.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

* Of course, to some on the left all non-leftists are “far right.” This is called the phenomenon of “the left pole.”

milkshake, political violence, New Republic, Nigel Farage, Brexit, right, immigration,

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
ideological culture scandal

Northam Exposure?

Ralph Northam, blackface, kkk, yearbook,

Hear that?

It’s the faint sound made by an incredibly perfunctory effort to get to the bottom of the yearbook scandal that has cast, shall we say, a blackface shadow over Virginia Governor Ralph Northam.

Back in February, news broke that the governor’s personal page in the 1984 Eastern Virginia Medical School (EVMS) yearbook contained a photograph of one person in blackface next to another wearing Ku Klux Klan robes and hood. 

“That photo and the racist and offensive attitudes it represents does not reflect that person I am today. . . .” Gov. Northam offered. “I am deeply sorry. I cannot change the decisions I made, nor can I undo the harm my behavior caused then or today.”

The next day, Northam recanted, claiming that neither the painted nor hooded head was his, and bafflement as to how the photo got onto his page.

The media hasn’t been digging into the story, but the McGuireWoods law firm was hired by EVMS to “independently” investigate.* Yesterday, the firm released a 55-page report that couldn’t say one way or the other about the who or the how of his yearbook page photo — while acknowledging that “one witness has reported to us that he recalls reviewing the Governor’s personal yearbook page with the Governor in 1984.”

Apparently, Northam’s staff had provided various options for responding to the “chaotic” media frenzy, including a “full denial” and “full acceptance.” 

Talk about zeroing in on a plan.

“I always rely on my communications people,” Northam told investigators. “I don’t know why the statement went in the direction it did.”

There may be many courses of action, but only one truth. Which is what Gov. Northam should have chosen.

This Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

* The Portsmouth NAACP’s James Boyd expressed “zero trust” in the investigation, calling the law firm “attorneys for Ralph.”

PDF for printing

Ralph Northam, blackface, kkk, yearbook,

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts


Categories
free trade & free markets ideological culture national politics & policies

Pick a Number

Bernie Sanders, 15, minimum wage, magic,

Is the number 15 “magical”?

The “democratic socialists” now dominating the Democratic Party first went for the $15 national minimum wage notion. Now it’s a cap on consumer credit interest rates, at 15 percent.

What’s next, 15 mph speed limits? Age 15 allowed to vote? 

Fifteen men on a dead man’s chest?

At Reason, Peter Suderman explains why “Bernie Sanders’ New Plan Will Make It Tougher for Poor People to Get Credit Cards.” The arguments proffered by Senator Sanders and his House co-sponsor, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, more than “suggest that people who choose to use payday loans don’t, and perhaps can’t, understand the choices they are making. . . . It is a form of benevolent condescension built on the belief that poor people can’t count.”

Now, it may be that, generally, poor people do not figure their finances as well as better-off people. In fact, that’s demonstrated in the literature. But is that really the point?

The problem is, the methods they choose to help the poor make the poor less well-off. Because they take away options: “What Sanders is actually bragging about is eliminating choices,” Suderman explains. “In essence, Sanders is proud of having eliminated useful financial tools for the poor.”

What’s really going on here is the magic of persuasion. Fifteen is a “sticky number.” It will be used again and again as self-described socialists push for more and more unworkable government.

A bit of enchantment that just so happens to make one persuader a three-house millionaire . . . and a bartender from the Bronx the talk of the nation.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Bernie Sanders, 15, minimum wage, magic,

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
ideological culture

The Very Opposite of Force

U.S. Rep. Donald Norcross

One persuasive trick is to say the exact opposite of the truth, and say it with confidence. 

What is that? 

The proverbial “big lie”? Gaslighting? A “reality distortion field”?

Whatever you call it, U.S. Rep. Donald Norcross (D-N.J.) used it at a hearing of the U.S. House Education and Labor Committee last month. Interrogating Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, Rep. Norcross “demanded to know why free-market groups supported financially by the DeVos family have . . . backed campaigns trying to persuade teachers to quit their unions,” as The Detroit News told the story. 

The New Jersey Democrat was referencing Secretary DeVos’s enthusiasm for a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that undermined the special privileges of public employee unions by disallowing them from their practice of collecting “fees from non-members to cover collective bargaining costs,” The Detroit News explained.

Norcross pulled out all the stops: “In reality, teachers are being targeted, spammed, coerced by groups such as the Mackinac Center for Public Policy — that you probably know something about — and from the Freedom Foundation,” he accused.

Now, all that the Mackinac Center had been doing was informing teachers that they were not required to pay dues to unions to which they do not belong.

The very opposite of coercion!

Is the truth so repellent to the Democrat that its mere statement looms large enough to seem “coercive”?

Scott Adams, Dilbert creator and author of Win Bigly, argues that, when it comes to persuasion, “the facts don’t matter” . . . unless they are connected to emotion.

Well, calling free choice “coercion” sure connects to my emotions.

Negative ones.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

U.S. Rep. Donald Norcross

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts


Categories
ideological culture media and media people national politics & policies

Vasily Goloborodko for President?

Putin, Trump, VEEP, collusion. NPC,

Vladimir Putin may not be as powerful as feared.

Not only does he apparently not pull the strings of the much-accused-of/now-cleared-of-collusion “Trump Puppet,” Putin also does not write comic lines for the “acting” president of Ukraine.

You see, a few days ago Ukrainians held a run-off election to choose a new leader, and the man who won — Volodymyr Oleksandrovych Zelensky — is, like the U.S. president, a celebrated entertainer. 

In 2015, he began playing the role of Vasily Goloborodko in the TV show, Servant of the People. His character is a high-school history teacher who rants in class against government corruption. Soon a video of his extemporaneous tirade goes viral, and, voila, Goloborodko ascends to the presidency! 

Zelensky’s actual transit to the real presidency may be less funny but is just as remarkable.

A Kiev teacher quoted by the Los Angeles Times admitted the election was rather crazy. “But at least we have a choice. They don’t have that in Russia.” In the Times’ lede, Putin is identified as “by far the biggest loser of the night.” The anti-Russia trajectory of Ukrainian politics is reported to be steadfast. 

The anti-corruption movement, however, may be a bit iffier. 

Meanwhile, the eighth season of HBO’s political satire Veep is underway, and I am told it is as chillingly accurate as ever. Last week the anti-heroine Selina Meyer, played by Julia-Luis Dreyfuss, again stumbled her way into political success, this time by “accidentally” “colluding” with the Chinese Government.

Is this meant as a nod to Russiagate or a pointed Hillary Clinton commentary?*

Seems a lot like Ukrainian politics.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 * Two decades ago the “Chinagate” scandal roiled the second term of the Bill & Hillary Clinton Administration.

Putin, Trump, VEEP, collusion. NPC,

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
ideological culture national politics & policies Popular

The Debate Begins?

UBI, universal basic income, $1000, welfare,

The Green New Deal? So yesterday! 

“Millionaires and billionaires” paying “their fair share”? Well, after Bernie Sanders’ millionaire status hit the news, Democrats have some reason to shy away to . . . the Universal Basic Income!

“UBI” for short.

Right now the big pusher of the panacea is a Democratic presidential candidate, Andrew Yang.

Entrepreneurially minded, he insists that he is “pro-capitalist.” Which is refreshing in the current state of The Democracy, but, uh, he is also pro-UBI. “Nicknamed his ‘Freedom Dividend,’” Reason magazine reports, his proposal would “give $1,000 a month to every adult between the ages of 18 and 64.”

The Reason article contrasts Yang’s version of the UBI with Charles “What It Means To Be a Libertarian” Murray’s, who wants to chuck every welfare state program and replace it with a basic stipend.

Another libertarian, economist and political scientist Mike Munger, makes a similar pitch: replacing all of the welfare state (including Social Security!) with just the one transfer program. Murray and Munger both tout the beneficial effects for those trapped in poverty, earnestly wanting people trapped in the current welfare system to pry themsleves free from its grasp. But this method strikes me as a fantasy: replacement will not happen. It is politically nearly impossible. 

We would be lucky to nix even one measly program. 

For a freedom-oriented case for the program, consult Mike Munger’s debate with Antony Sammeroff, author of Universal Basic Income: For and Against. Unfortunately, you cannot vet a debate between Sammeroff and Andrew Yang, the latter having recently pulled out of a scheduled debate at New York’s Soho Forum.

Maybe before any political decisions, we insist upon a Universal Basic Debate.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

UBI, universal basic income, $1000, welfare,

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
ideological culture partisanship

In Lieu of Good Judgment

Rep. Ted Lieu, Candace Owens, TDS, Trump Derangement Syndrome, racism, Hitler

Politicians often dare . . . too much. 

But what did Rep. Ted Lieu dare to be last week?

Candace Owens’ appearance before the House Committee on the Judiciary caused quite a stir. The subject was hate crimes and white nationalism, and she offered a wider perspective: “We’re not talking enough about political hatred in this country, we’re not talking enough about conservative activists being attacked. . . .”

Needing to undermine that message, the Representative from California’s 33rd congressional district dared do the dirty deed. 

“Of all the people the Republicans could have selected” to appear before the hearing, Rep. Lieu said, “they picked Candace Owens. I don’t know Miss Owens; I’m not going to characterize her. I’m going to let her own words do the talking.”

By now you’ve almost certainly listened to what he did*: play a 30-second clip from a long interview of the conservative activist then ask some other hearing invitee to explain how dangerous her statement was. The 30 seconds completely elided the original context, implying, absurdly, that the African-American activist was a supporter of Hitler and white nationalism.

Ms. Owens responded in justified high moral dudgeon. And Rep. Lieu came out looking . . . as Owens put it, “unbelievably dishonest.”

What was he thinking?

Scott Adams saw only two possibilities: “What Ted Lieu attempted (and failed) to do Candace Owens is not politics, it’s just despicable.” Lieu is either “one of the worst people who’s ever lived” or he is, in line with so many other #NeverTrumpers, “experiencing actual hysteria.”

Unfortunately, Washington partisans regularly make evil and insanity hard to distinguish.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

* “The most-watched C-Span Twitter video from a House hearing ever,” says Rush Limbaugh.

PDF for printing

Rep. Ted Lieu, Candace Owens, TDS, Trump Derangement Syndrome, racism, Hitler

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
folly ideological culture media and media people moral hazard Popular

Systemic Refocusing

white privilege, Jussie Smollett, Elizabeth Warren, Rachel Dolezal

Everyone comes into this world with advantages and disadvantages. 

In the last century, public morality focused on the disadvantaged. Government policy changed dramatically, aiming to help those lacking many obvious advantages. But that focus got fuzzier and fuzzier as the ranks of disadvantaged people remained, even grew larger. Progress was made on several fronts, sure, but not on all — especially not on the ones most targeted.

We even “lost ground.”

Maybe because of this, the political focus shifted to “privilege” — which often merely means “advantaged” and sometimes means a special license granted by custom or law, which is said to be “systemic.” 

White males, we are told, have the most of it. 

So they must be attacked.

But does “white [heterosexual male] privilege” really exist?

Sure, in some contexts. But so do other “privileges.” Here is a better question: Are there privileges so built in that people try to horn in on them?

When there really was white privilege, “passing for white” was a thing. Now, we see other directions of racial “passing.” Sen. Elizabeth Warren, 99 and 44/100ths pure white, for example. If white privilege were really systemic, would she have pretended to be a native American? 

If white privilege were significantly at play in the academic world, the issue of Asian students qualifying for (and being accepted into) the country’s most prestigious universities wouldn’t even come up.

And if white people actually enforced their privilege, would the charges against Jussie Smollett for perpetrating a fake racial/ideological hate crime have been dropped? 

Seems unlikely.

If the results of focusing on advantage and privilege have been so dismal and dismaying, maybe it’s time for a refocus: on simple justice.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

white priviledge, Jussie Smollett, Elizabeth Warren, Rachel Dolezal

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts