Mediaboss Marketing

By Jennifer Burns By Jennifer Burns March 3

Jennifer Burns is an Associate Professor of History at Stanford University and a Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution.

Ayn Rand is dead. Its been 35 years since hundreds of mourners filed by her coffin (fittingly accompanied by a dollar-sign-shaped flower arrangement), but it has been only four months since she truly died as a force in American politics. Yes, there was aflurryofarticles identifyingRand lovers in the Trump administration, including Rex Tillerson and Mike Pompeo; yes, Ivanka Trumptweetedaninaccurate Rand quotein mid-February. But the effort to fix a recognizable right-wing ideology on President Trump only obscures the more significant long-term trends that the election of 2016 laid bare.However much Trump seems like the Rand hero par excellence a wealthy man with a fiery belief in, well, himself his victory signals the exhaustion of the Republican Partys romance with Rand.

In electing Trump, the Republican base rejected laissez-faire economics in favor of economic nationalism. Full-fledged objectivism, the philosophy Rand invented, is an atheistic creed that calls for pure capitalism and a bare-bones government with no social spending on entitlement programs such as Social Security or Medicare. Itsnever appeared on the national political scene without significant dilution. But there was plenty of diluted Rand on offer throughout the primary season: Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, Carly Fiorina and Ted Cruz all espoused traditional Republican nostrums about reducing the role of government to unleash American prosperity.

Yetnone of this could match Trumps full-throated roar to build a wallor his protectionist plans for American trade. In the general election,Trumpsought outnew voters and independents using arguments traditionally associated with Democrats: deploying the power of the state to protect workers and guarantee their livelihoods, even at the cost of trade agreements and long-standing international alliances. Trumps economic promises electrifiedruralworking-class voters the same way Bernie Sanders excited urban socialists.Where Rands influence has stood for years on the right for a hands-off approach to the economy,Trumps America first platformcontradicts this premise by assuming that government policies can and should deliberately shape economic growth, up to and includingpunishing specific corporations. Likewise, his promise to craft trade policy in support of the American worker is the exact opposite of Rands proclamation that the essence of capitalisms foreign policy is free trade.

And theres little hope that Trumps closest confidants will reverse his decidedly anti-Randian course. Theconservative Republicanswhocame to powerwith Trumpin an almost accidental processmay findthey have to exchange certain ideals to stay close to him. True, Paul Ryan and Mike Pence have been able to breathe new life into Republican economic and social orthodoxies. For instance, in a nod to Pences religious conservatism, Trump shows signs ofreversing his earlier friendlinessto gay rights. And his opposition to Obamacare dovetails with Ryans long-held ambitions to shrink federal spending. Even so, there is little evidence that either Pence or Ryan would have survived a Republican primary battle against Trump or fared well in a national election; their fortunes are dependent on Trumps. And the president won by showing that the Republican base and swing voters have moved on from the traditional conservatism of Reagan and Rand.

What is rising on the right is not Randian fear of government but something far darker. It used to be that bright young things likeStephen Miller, Trumps controversial White House aide, came up on Rand. In the 1960s, she inspired a rump movement of young conservatives determined to subvert the GOP establishment, drawing in future bigwigs such as Alan Greenspan. Her admirers were powerfully attracted to the insurgent presidential campaign of Barry Goldwater, whom Rand publicly supported. They swooned when she talked about the ethics of capitalism, delegitimizing programs like Medicare and Medicaid as immoral. They thrilled to her attack on the draft and other conservative pieties. At national conferences, they asked each other, Who is John Galt? (a reference to her novel Atlas Shrugged) and waved the black flag of anarchism, modified with a gold dollar sign.

Over time, most conservatives who stayed in politics outgrew these juvenile provocations or disavowed them. For example, Ryan moved swiftly toreplace Rand with Thomas Aquinaswhen he was nominated in 2012 for vice president, claiming that the Catholic thinker was his primary inspiration (although it was copies of Atlas Shrugged, not Summa Theologiae, that he handed out to staffers). But former Randites retained her fiery hatred of government and planted it within the mainstream GOP. And it was Rand who had kindled their passions in the first place, making her the starting point for a generation of conservatives.

Now Rand is on the shelf, gathering dust with F.A. Hayek, Edmund Burke and otheronce-prominentconservative luminaries. Its no longer possible to provoke the elders by going on about John Galt. Indeed, many of the elders have by now used Randian references to name theiryachts,investment companiesandfoundations.

Instead, young insurgent conservatives talk about race realism,argue that manipulated crime statisticsmask growing social disorderand cast feminism as aplot against men. Instead of reading Rand, they take the red pill, indulging in an emergent internet counter-culture that reveals the principles of liberalism rights, equality, tolerance to be dangerous myths. BeyondBreitbart.com, ideological energy on the right now courses through tiny blogs and websites of the Dark Enlightenment, the latter-day equivalent of RandsObjectivist Newsletterand the many libertarian zines she inspired.

Once upon a time, professors tut-tutted when Rand spoke to overflow crowds on college campuses, where she lambasted left and right alike and claimed, improbably, that big business wasAmericas persecuted minority. She delighted in skewering liberal audience members and occasionally turned her scorn on questioners. But this was soft stuff compared with the insults handed out by Milo Yiannopoulosand the uproar that has greeted his appearances.Rand may have accused liberals of having a lust for power, but she never would have called Holocaust humor a harmless search for lulz, as Yiannopoulos gleefully does.

Indeed, the new ideas on the right have moved away from classical liberalism altogether. American conservatives have always had a mixed reaction to the Western philosophical tradition that emphasizes the sanctity of the individual. Religious conservatives, in particular, often struggle with Rand because her extreme embrace of individualism leaves little room for God, country, duty or faith. But Trump represents a victory for a form of conservatism that is openly illiberal and willing to junk entirely the traditional rhetoric of individualism and free markets for nationalism inflected with racism, misogyny and xenophobia.

Mixed in with Rands vituperative attacks on government was a defense of the individuals rights in the face of a powerful state. This single-minded focus could yield surprising alignments, such as Rands opposition to drug laws and her support of legal abortion. And although liberals have always loved to hate her, over the next four years, they may come to miss herdefense of individual autonomy and liberty. Ayn Rand is dead.Long live Ayn Rand!

See the original post:
Ayn Rand is dead. Liberals are going to miss her. - Washington Post

Numerous commentaries from both the left and the right have expounded the parlous state of the Democratic Party. And, to be sure, the Democrats have been working on extinguishing themselves in vast parts of the country, and have even managed to make themselves less popular than the Republicans in recent polls.

Yet, in the longer term, the demographic prospects of a Democratic resurgence remain excellent. Virtually all of the growing parts of the electorate millennials, Latinos, Asians, single women are tilting to the left. It is likely just a matter of time, particularly as more conservative whites from the silent and boomer generations begin to die off.

But, in politics, like life, time can make a decisive difference. Its been almost a decade since the Atlantic proclaimed the end of white America, but Anglos will continue to dominate the electorate for at least the next few electoral cycles, and they have been trending to the right. In 1992, white voters split evenly between the parties, but last year went 54 percent to 39 percent for the GOP.

To win consistently in the near term, and compete in red states, Democrats need to adjust the cultural and racial agenda dominating the resistance to one that addresses directly the challenges faced by working- and middle-class families of all races. This notion of identity politics, as opposed to those of social class, is embraced by the progressives allies in the media, academia, urban speculators, Hollywood and Silicon Valley, since environmentalism, gender and race issues do not directly threaten their wealth or privileged status.

The rise of identity politics, born in the 1960s, has weakened the partys appeal to the broader population, as Columbia University humanities professor Mark Lilla argued in a November New York Times column. But most progressives, like pundit Matthew Yglesias, suggest that there is no other way to do politics. To even suggest abandoning identity politics, one progressive academic suggested, is an expression of white supremacy, and she compared the impeccably progressive Lilla with KKK leader David Duke.

This hurts the Democrats as they seek to counter President Donald Trump. Americans may not be enthusiastic about mass deportations, but the Democratic embrace of open borders and sanctuary cities also is not popular not even in California. And while most Americans might embrace choice as a basic principle, many, even millennials, are queasy about late-term abortions.

Democrats also need to distance themselves from the anti-police rhetoric of Black Lives Matter. Among millennials, law enforcement and the military are the most trusted of all public institutions. Rabid racial politics among Democrats, notes Lee Trepanier, political science professor at Saginaw Valley State University in Michigan and editor of the VoegelinView website, is steadily turning white voters into something of a conscious racial tribe.

Advertisement

Finally, Democrats have now embraced a form of climate change orthodoxy that, if implemented, all but guarantees that America will not have a strong, broad-based economic expansion. The economic pillars of todays Democratic Party may thrive in a globalist, open-border society, but not many in the more decidedly blue-collar industrial, agricultural or homebuilding industries.

To appeal to the middle and working classes, the Democrats need to transcend cultural avant-gardism and embrace a more solid social democratic platform. Inequality and downward mobility have grown inexorably under both parties, which is why Bernie Sanders, and his eventual mini-me, Hillary Clinton, essentially ran against the Obama administrations economic record.

On immigration, they dont have to embrace Trumps misguided views, but they should seek policies that dont displace American workers. High-tech oligarchs may love H1-B visas that allow them access to indentured foreign geeks, but replacing middle-class IT workers with these foreign workers seems certain to alienate many, including the majority of white, college-educated people who voted for Trump. In contrast to oligarch-friendly Clinton, Bernie Sanders questioned both open borders and H1-B visas.

Sanders key plank a single-payer, Canadian-like health care system also could appeal to many small businesses, consultants and the expanding precariat of contract workers dependent on the now imperiled Obamacare. Critically, both health care and economic mobility priorities cross the color line, which is crucial to spreading social democracy here.

The key remains embracing growth and expanding opportunity. A pragmatic and work-oriented form of social democracy, as seen in Scandinavia, could be combined with a growth agenda. The Nordics may preen about their environmental righteousness, but their economies depend largely on exploiting natural resources wood, iron ore, oil as well as manufactured exports.

Opposing Trumps plan to expand opportunity and bring jobs back to the country just to spite the president may not play so well in the long run. Most Americans may disapprove of Trump, the person, but they seem far more open to his policies, and are more optimistic than under the far more popular Obama. Trumps defense of popular entitlements and infrastructure spending should garner some Democratic approval.

Rather than resist and posture in megadollar glitter, Democrats would be better served by developing their own middle-class-oriented growth program. This would be nothing unique for Democrats, and was central to the policies of Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson and, most recently, Bill Clinton. If Donald Trump gets sole credit for a massive infrastructure expansion and a robust economy in the face of hyperpolarizing resistance histrionics, then the timeline for a Democratic resurgence could be put off for a decade or more.

Joel Kotkin is the R.C. Hobbs Presidential Fellow in Urban Futures at Chapman University in Orange and executive director of the Houston-based Center for Opportunity Urbanism (www.opportunityurbanism.org).

View original post here:
How the Democrats can rebuild: Joel Kotkin - LA Daily News

JACKSONVILLE, Ala. If the Democratic Party is ailing after losing the presidency to Donald Trump, state parties are on life support.

Here in the long-ago Democratic stronghold of Alabama, the party is all but dead, say some of its disheartened members. Consider: Not a single statewide office is held by a Democrat; the state Legislature is dominated by Republicans with just 33 Democrats out of 105 House seats and eight of 35 Senate seats.

Democrats havent won a U.S. Senate election in the state since 1992 or the governorship since 1998. There are no Democratic appellate judges, nor any Democratic members of the states Public Service Commission. Democrats also are becoming scarcer in county offices.

The Democratic Party in Alabama is on a crash-and-burn track unless something drastic happens to stop this runaway train, according to Sheila Gilbert, chair of the Calhoun County Democrats, who hand-delivered a letter outlining the partys problems following a speech I gave at Jacksonville State University as the Ayers lecturer.

The letter was signed by Gilbert as a leader of the Alabama Democratic Reform Caucus (ADRC) and 17 other members in attendance. The group, which formed two years ago to try to help revive the state party, wasnt coy about its reason for approaching me.

We need a spotlight on Alabama and some outside effort to avoid becoming a totally one-party state, Gilbert said.

I didnt bother to mention that the current U.S. attorney general, former Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions, was shining quite a spotlight on their home state. Whether Sessions is forced to resign after already recusing himself from any investigation into Russias role in the 2016 election campaign remains to be seen. The fall of such a high-profile Republican could be useful to Democrats back home trying to defibrillate the party.

But Gilberts group has been critical of state Democratic Party officials for missing an opportunity to recruit candidates when other Republican politicians were in trouble, including the governor and House speaker. A recent meeting of county and state party leaders reportedly became heated, as when state Chairwoman Nancy Worley offered to call police to escort one county chairman from the room and may be emblematic more broadly of the partys disintegration from within.

The GOP went through this same sort of infighting and navel-gazing on the national level several years back. After losing the presidency to Barack Obama in 2008, it regrouped, reformed itself, became disciplined and has taken the House, Senate, the White House and most of the nations governorships, while also successfully gerrymandering congressional districts that have given Republicans the advantage in many states at least until the next redistricting in 2020.

Democrats are readying themselves for that fight, but theyll need to do more than try to redraw the map. While Democrats were basking in Obamas sunny smile, Republicans were busy building benches of future leaders, especially at the state attorney general level, where they are now in the majority. The strategy has been to recruit and help elect strong attorneys general who could be groomed to become governors, senators and possibly president.

What, meanwhile, can Democrats do, a fellow in the audience asked me.

There was a plaintive tone in his voice and I wanted to help, though the truth is, Im not accustomed to Democrats asking my advice. But in the spirit of it takes two to tango and the fact that Id rather not live in a country exclusively run by either party Ill give it a fresh, morning-after stab.

Whats really ailing Democrats is theyve fallen in love with abstract principles, as reflected on an ADRC handout, without building a foundation where such goals as fair pay, transparency, diversity and such can be played out. Trump may have been coarse and loose at times during the campaign, but he spoke in plain language with plain meaning: Jobs, jobs, jobs.

Whether Trump can fix trade, create jobs and make money for the rest of us was a gamble people were willing to take. Fixing the economy was Obamas mandate, too, but he decided to focus on health care instead. This is where lust for legacy interferes with good governance. Obama did manage to help turn the economic steamship around the market bounced from just under 8,000 when he took office to nearly 20,000 but Wall Streets recovery didnt trickle down to the middle class, where Trump planted his flag.

When in doubt, look to the victor.

Kathleen Parker is a columnist for Washington Post Writers Group.

Excerpt from:
Dispirited Democrats desperately seek revivial - The Spokesman-Review

State legislators across the country are debating new measures that would require candidates running for president to publicly disclose their tax returns to qualify for the ballot.

The measures are aimed at President Trump, who became the first White House candidate in recent times refuse to release his tax documents to the public.

Democrats, incensed by Trumps false claims of being prevented from releasing the documents because of an IRS audit, see the legislation on the state level as a way to force the presidents hand when he seeks reelection in 2020.

Tax return information would provide some transparency there to give voters the assurance that they need that the president is acting on behalf of us, said Kathleen Clyde, an Ohio state representative who recently introduced a version of the bill. It is problematic that he is the only candidate in 30 or 40 years not to provide that information.

Similar measures requiring candidates to file with Secretary of State offices have been introduced in California, Oregon and Tennessee. Candidates would be required to file tax documents with state boards of election under bills filed in Illinois, Maryland, New York and Rhode Island.

Other versions of the legislation would require presidential candidates to disclose their tax records in public, though not necessarily through state offices, before they qualify for the ballot. All told, 32 versions of tax disclosure bills have been filed in 19 states.

Most of the measures introduced this year have come from Democrats. Only one version of the bill, in Minnesota, was introduced by a Republican.

In states with Republican-led legislatures, the tax bills are as good as dead. Virginias legislature killed a disclosure bill in committee. Similar laws have been sent to die in committees in Arizona, Iowa, Pennsylvania and Tennessee.

But in other states, mostly those run by Democrats, some bills are making progress. Committees have approved versions in New Jersey and New Mexico. A legislative committee in Hawaii advanced their version of the bill this week.

Legislators in Maryland and Connecticut held hearings on their measures last month. Oregons version, sponsored by House Majority Leader Jennifer Williamson (D), will likely advance to the floor.

And in California, where Democrats own a super majority of legislative seats, the bills prime sponsors expect it to advance after hearings are held in April. Mike McGuire, the California state senator who sponsored the bill, said he hopes his state will inspire others to action.

The office of the president is the only office in America that is exempt from conflict of interest laws, said Mike McGuire, the California senator who sponsored the bill. We believe that, as California goes, so many times, so goes the nation.

Legal experts said it is unclear whether requiring a candidate to disclose his or her tax returns would withstand legal scrutiny. Rick Hasen, a campaign legal expert at the University of California-Irvine and author of the Election Law Blog, wrote that U.S. Supreme Court cases have blocked states from adding qualifications for congressional candidates to ballot access rules, though those cases did not cover presidential elections.

If those cases applied here, it would be tough to argue that laws requiring presidential candidates to produce tax returns are constitutional as they would be adding to qualifications, Hasen wrote on his blog. However, those cases did not involve presidential elections, and perhaps state legislatures have much broader power under Article II.

McGuire said he had consulted with constitutional experts, andthat courts have approved other ballot access requirements, like collecting signatures or paying a fee.

States clearly have the ability to require a filing fee and other requirements before someone can be placed onto the ballot, McGuire said. Courts have upheld these requirements over the past several decades, and were sure theyre going to uphold this law as well.

View original post here:
Democrats try new tactic to get Trump's tax returns | TheHill - The Hill

Democrats are pushing back on President Trumps Saturday morning claims that President Obama wiretapped Trump Tower offices before the election.

While at his Mar-a-Lago Club in Florida for the weekend, Mr. Trump fired off a series of early morning tweets accusing President Obama, without citing evidence, of wiretapping Trump Tower. He described this as Nixon/Watergate, calling Mr. Obama a bad (or sick) guy.

Ben Rhodes, the deputy national security adviser under Mr. Obama, denied Mr. Trumps accusations and responded by saying presidents cant order wiretaps:

And House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi called for an investigation by an independent commission into Mr. Trump and his campaign ties to Russia:

Others, including former Vermont Gov. and DNC Chairman Howard Dean and Rep. Ted Lieu, D-California, pointed out on Twitter that if Mr. Trumps allegations are true a judge would have had to find probable cause to approve the wiretap request:

2017 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Continue reading here:
Democrats respond to Trump's wiretapping claim - CBS News