Mediaboss Marketing

A whole lot of sound and fury has been made over political correctness. Its impossible to avoid talking about it, given its important role in the culture wars.

The old conservative yarn about political correctness is that its a leftist tool to suppress free speech. It accomplishes this by conditioning political discourse according to the constantly evolving rules and mercurial sensibilities of the left. This set-up skews the conversation from the outset in favor of the left. In this sense, political correctness has mostly been bad for the right so far.

Political correctness has doubtless played a major role in transforming our society according to the progressive program, and it continues to be the lefts major weapon in the culture wars. But how long can this advantage last?

Because of the fragile sensibilities of progressives, the culture wars have become, increasingly, a battle about speech rather than ideas. And this is starting to be bad for progressives. A tool that was meant to give them an edge is turning on them, and making them look out-of-touch and foolish.

The thing about odd speech is that it excites our amusement involuntarily. Lewis Carrolls Jabberwocky is funny because its all nonsense. There is something inherently funny about nonsensical bullshit.

When leftists butcher language to make reality conform to their ideas, the results are often ridiculous and difficult for outsiders to take seriously. SJW talk has been the butt of internet jokes for a while now, long enough to almost stop being funny altogether. Once upon a time, it was edgy and original to satirize the odd lingo popularized on Tumblr to describe confused young people who didnt receive enough attention from their parents growing up. There was something funny about those non-binary conforming non-GMO eating otherkin because the language seemed innocuous.

Its not funny anymore because it has become obvious that the left was never joking. Recently, Cambridge University tutors were told to stop using the word genius because of its sexist assumptions. Too often, genius has been used to describe brilliantly inventive men; therefore, the term genius is offensive to women.

To observers outside this strange bubble, this linguistic revisionism is pretentious, confusing, and simply ridiculous. It does nothing but push people away.

Political correctness is not new, but there is a growing feeling, not only on the right but outside the extreme-left campus bubble generally, that it didnt used to be this crazy. It only seems new because it has reached such an intensity of ridiculousness as to impress itself as something completely original. We are free-floating in a whole new world of linguistic and logical possibilities. In this world, it is possible at one and the same time to be a radical feminist and a devout Muslim; race is a social construct, but whites are inherently guilty for past injustices; and cisgendered people, the normative group, are expected to treat transgendered people like the new normative group. Most people identify with their biological sex, so it goes without saying that most people would balk at being prompted to give their preferred gender pronoun. Only in the vacuum-sealed world of academia could a question like this make any sense.

This system of ideas, if it can be called that, has no internal logic because it is not based on time-honored common sense. We have become unmoored from the traditions that Westerners accepted for generations to make sense of the world, and in doing so, we have discarded common sense.

The left has become reliant on political correctness to conceal the illogic of this system. Open dialogue is threatening to the left because it risks exposing their ideology as illogical and indefensible.

Outside the campus leftist bubble, people in the real world arent taken in by this Panglossian junk.

All it does is hurt the left in the end. Jon Ossoffs electoral loss has demonstrated better than any recent election could that the left needs to rethink how it reaches the electorate. A platform based on political correctness and antipathy towards the President wont do.

Worse, political correctness brings down political discourse by making it all about speech and feelings rather than ideas. Part of having a productive conversation is having clear ideas. Every philosophy undergrad knows this. How is it even possible to have a productive discussion when the ideas arent at the forefront of the discussion? When the terms to signify those ideas are constantly evolving?

Political correctness has been helpful to the left so far, but it will only hurt the progressive cause in the long run. If progressives dropped the language games, the constant speech policing, and the histrionic hurt parades, they might well lose some support, initially. But if they want to stay in touch with the electorate, they will have to, at some point, reflect, develop a better strategy for reaching people, and come down to earth. Maybe, then, theyll start winning again.

Read the original:
Political Correctness Presents A Challenge For Progressives - The Daily Caller

Lest we forget at least an over the shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history beginsor which is which), the very first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdomLucifer. Saul D. Alinsky, Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals.

Alinsky wrote the playbook for todays progressive movement. It is not at all impossible to see the hate that exists in the progressive movement when you consider the author of their playbook, Alinsky, used Satan as his shining example of success using radical tactics.

Last week a mad man opened fire on several sitting members of Congress critically injuring the House Majority Whip Steve Scalise. Unlike a 1954 attack on House representatives, this attack came from one of our own, not a group of Puerto Rican nationalists. Scalises attacker was a guy from Illinois.

The 1954 incident injured five members of the House and actually occurred on the House floor when four members of the Puerto Rican Nationalist Party opened fire from the visitors gallery. The assailants were fighting a war for Puerto Ricos political independence while the House was debating, coincidentally, an immigration bill.

The man from Illinois, on the other hand, was born and bred in the United States. He was a union member and a supporter of Bernie Sanders. Sanders openly apologized for his actions, but it wasnt Sanders fault. The fault lies in the ridiculous ramp up of political vitriol and the violent past of the leftist movement.

The problem with this guy from Illinois, aside from a reported tendency to act violently, was his political indoctrination through the union. The union has had a long history of violence from their beginnings during the Bolshevik Revolution and the rise of the Communist Party to their days of being in cahoots with the mafia. Most famously, mobster Jimmy Hoffa ran the Teamsters.

While the mafias grip has waned since the government crackdowns in the late 1980s, it doesnt mean their tactics are all that dramatically different. Theyve simply adopted the same playbook the radical left has been using for years. Alinsky was a guy whose core belief was that Conflict is the essential core of a free and open society. If one were to project the democratic way of life in the form of a musical score, its major theme would be the harmony of dissonance.

There are a lot of new players in the political game since the 2008 elections. Its a good thing when you consider the new people who are getting active in our political process. Unfortunately, it is also can be a bad thing when you consider the political hatred that came with it.

The fringes of political thought have dominated our political debate in recent years. Consider the swing of the same political electorate that delivered the extreme political views of Barack Obama and Donald Trump. Whether you are a Democrat or a Republican, taking a moderate position is doomed to have one labeled as an in-name only participant (not to be confused with calling out candidates who have seemingly switched teams for political gain).

Since the 2016 election, the anti-Trump rhetoric has been over the top. Its a national embarrassment the way the left has done everything from stage Shakespearean remakes showing the assassination of Trump (in lieu of Julius Caesar) to a downward-spiraling comedienne holding his severed head for the cameras. Clearly the unions and progressives were not behind last weeks attack nor were they involved in any way, shape, or form. They are, however, responsible for the language of hate thrown at any concept that remotely smells like a conservative idea.

The labor movement has been racked with violence since its beginning. The progressive movement and its Alinsky-like tactics are not far behind. Combine Alinskys lessons along with the irrational attacks against, not just the policies of a sitting president but staged against his very life, theyve created the environment for at least one kook to go unhinged.

Tim McCumber is a resident of Merrimac.

It really is time for the left to ramp down the hateful rhetoric and violent displays against our president. If they do not stop, the attack on House representatives is just the starting point. It is likely to get a lot worse.

Lest we forget the very first radicalor end up in the same place.

Continued here:
TIM MCCUMBER: Progressives and the first radical | Opinion ... - La Crosse Tribune

Laura Weber Davis/WDET

Stephen Henderson (left) with Faith Fowler (middle) and Nick Hood III(right)

Many of the major progressive movements of our nation were rooted in the church. Political strategy centered around moral obligation came from religious groups that pushed for an end to slavery, equal rights for women, and an end to Jim Crow laws. But over the past few decades the message of religious obligation and morality has been largely won-over by the Conservative movement. The Republican Party has benefited greatly from the support of the conservative church, which has found political inroads with an anti-abortion, anti-LGBT, evangelicalbase.

But new humanist movements are afoot that have invigorated the liberal church with discussions at the fore over the value of Black and immigrant lives, and the future health of ourplanet.

Can progressive churches and religious messages find their way back into political and social prominence in a way that shapes the future of our country? Or are progressive movements now owned primarily by secularAmerica?

Laurie Goodstein, national religion correspondent for theNew York Times, recently published an article titled Liberals Fighting for their Faith: Seeking to Break Rights Grip on Nations Moral Agenda. Goodstein joins Stephen Henderson onDetroit Todayto discuss the role of faith inpolitics.

Goodstein says after President Donald Trump was elected, she noticed religious people wanting to make their presence known at marches andprotests.

I think what theyre saying is that they want to bring a moral language to the debate, Goodstein says. People of faith and the clergy, she says,believe they have language that can help the country decipherright from wrong.

The conversation continues withRev. Faith Fowler, executive director ofCass Community Social Servicesand pastor ofCass Community United Methodist ChurchandRev. Nick Hood III, pastor and senior minister of thePlymouth United Church of Christ, both inDetroit.

I think the challenge for today is that 65 or 70 percent of Americans dont go to church, says Hood. The people in the progressive movement who are driving the liberal politics right now, many of them are not in church The other issue is that many of the churches in Detroit are fighting for survival [because they] cant pay their water billSo I dont think the church has really forsaken the politics. Its kind of a sleepinggiant.

Many Detroit churches are struggling to stay open, but according to Fowler, theyre still driving charitable work in theircommunities.

Almost every church in the city of Detroit is doing somethingbecause theyre surrounded by such great need, says Fowler. At one of our main campuses, the poverty rate is over 44%, so those mercy ministries are important. But so are justice ministries Part of the problem is if churches receive government money, they feel very limited in what they can do as it relates to justice ministries because your funding comes from the government, the separation of church and state, and all that kind ofthing.

Click on the audio player above to hear the fullconversation.

Jake Neher/WDET

First Unitarian Universalist Church inMidtownDetroit

Read the original post:
Can Religious Progressives Become A Political Force Again? - WDET

Bill Maher Real Time June 16

When Bill Maher spoke one on one to Breitbart editor-in-chief Alex Marlow at the top of Fridays episode of Real Time, they had plenty of agreement on the Public Theaters Shakespeare in the Park production of Julius Caesar featuring the graphic assassination of a Trump-like title character with ridiculous yellow wig and an over-long red tie.

Maher brought up the furor while talking about attacks on free speech, but in a twist, he seemed to agree with those who say the play went too far. Now Im fond of saying to Republicans all the time now if Obama did it but really, Maher said, if Obama was Julius Caesar and he got stabbed, I think liberals would be angry about that.

Oh absolutely, Marlow agreed. It would be bedlam in the media.

I dont think they should have Trump playing Julius Caesar, I dont, Maher added.

Also Read: 'Julius Caesar' Theater Review: Trump and the Bard Both Assassinated in Bloody Debacle

Theres just one problem with Mahers statement: You dont have to imagine a production of Julius Caesar featuring a President Obama version of the title character.

It happened in 2012, at the Guthrie Theater in Minneapolis, in collaboration with the Acting Company. So, how angry did liberals get over that production?

Not even a little bit.

Also Read: Donald Trump Once Donated to Public Theater's New York Shakespeare Festival

The reaction was instead mainly a collective shrug. Critics werent blown away, but they by and large liked the idea in theory.

For one example, heres what MSPMag said about portraying Caesar as a lanky Black man. It fits, sort of. Like Caesar, Obama rose to power on a tide of public goodwill; like Caesar, there were many in government who doubted Obamas leadership abilities; and now that Obamas first term has failed to live up to the messianic hype, there are plenty of people who for the good of the country, you understand, not their own glory want to take Obama down.

Few conservative groups commented on the production at the time, but those that did praised it, like The American Conservative.

Also Read: Delta Airlines, Bank of America Dump NYC's Public Theater Over 'Graphic' Trumpified 'Julius Caesar'

And while high-profile sponsors of New York Citys Public Theater including Delta Airlines and Bank of America withdrew their support and condemned the Trumpified Julius Caesar the Guthrie production faced no such blowback.

And as The Washington Post noted earlier this weekin 2012 Delta was a sponsor of the Guthrie Theater in 2012, and as of today remains on the list of the Theaters corporate sponsors, credited with giving hundreds of thousands of dollars per year.

As for liberals, you guessed it there was no outrage to speak of, and certainly none we were able to locate via Google searches today.

There was certainly no national uproar. Liberal groups did not call for the theater to lose funding, or accuse the producers of implying threats against the President. Critics didnt slam the play. And the production didnt become a national controversy condemned by citizens, pundits, and politicians, whilebleeding sponsors.

Andnow we know how liberals would have reacted to an Obama version of Julius Caesar.

Since becoming president, Donald Trump has had a lot more occasion to talk about American history. He likes to remind people that "you know, I'm, like, a smart person," but he doesn't always seem to get it right. Here are 11 instances of Trump and his surrogates giving weirdo history lessons.

1. On Frederick Douglass During a Black History Month breakfast in February, after mentioning several African American historical figures Trump said, "Frederick Douglass is an example of somebody who's done an amazing job and is being recognized more and more, I notice." We're not saying Trump didn't know who Douglass was, but despite his remarks, the famed abolitionist died in 1895.

2. On Trumps Civil War Battle Golf Course Trumps Virginia golf course on the Potomac River includes a plaque stating the location was the site of a Civil War battle. Many great American soldiers, both of the North and South, died at this spot, the inscription reads. The casualties were so great that the water would turn red and thus became known as The River of Blood. Historians say nothing significant took place at the site.

3. On Abraham Lincolns Political Party Trump brought up Abraham Lincoln at the National Republican Congressional Committee Dinner in March. "Great president. Most people don't even know he was a Republican," Trump said. "Does anyone know? Lot of people don't know that."

Lincoln, of course, is famously the first Republican president, although the party has changed significantly, both geographically and ideologically, from when it was started in 1854. Trump went on to suggest, Let's take an ad, let's use one of those PACs, to educate people about Lincolns link to the party. He apparently was unaware the GOP very often refers to itself as the Party of Lincoln.

4. On His Electoral College Victory Since winning the 2016 presidential election, Trump and his team have repeatedly called the win the biggest electoral college win since Ronald Reagan. It wasnt. In fact, only two presidents have received fewer than Trumps 304 electoral votes since 1972 Jimmy Carter and George W. Bush. And Trumps 304 is less than both of Barack Obamas wins, at 365 in 2008 and 332 in 2012.

5. On His Inauguration Crowd Trump and his surrogates have maintained he had the biggest inauguration crowd in history, citing both the people on the ground at the National Mall in Washington D.C., and watching on TV and online. When I looked at the numbers that have come in from all of the various sources, we had the biggest audience in the history of inaugural speeches, Trump told ABC News. Going by the crowd and TV numbers, though, Trumps inauguration crowd was definitely not the biggest ever.

Nielsen ratings for the inauguration put TV viewership at about 31 million, or 19 percent fewer than the number who tuned in for Obamas inauguration in 2009, The Independent reports. And a PBS timelapse video shows the National Mall was never full during the entire event, while shots of Obamas inaugurations show the mall packed. Trumps inauguration might make up the difference with online streaming viewers, but those numbers arent known to the public or the media.

6. On Andrew Jackson and the Civil War In a Sirius XM interview with a reporter from the Washington Examiner, Trump said President Andrew Jackson would have stopped the Civil War. I mean, had Andrew Jackson been a little later you wouldn't have had the Civil War," Trump said. "He was a very tough person but he had a big heart. He was really angry that he saw with regard to the Civil War, he said 'There's no reason for this.'" Jackson, of course, died in 1845 16 years before the Civil War began.

Trump took to Twitterto clarify his comments on Jackson. President Andrew Jackson, who died 16 years before the Civil War started, saw it coming and was angry. Would never have let it happen! In fact, Jackson, a slave owner, probably would have fallen on the Confederacys pro-slavery side.

7. On the Civil War, Why People don't realize, you know, the Civil War, if you think about it, why? Trump continued during the same interview. People don't ask that question, but why was there the Civil War? Why could that one not have been worked out? Of course, plenty of people have asked the Civil War, why? The answer: slavery.

8. On Medieval Times (Not the Restaurant) In February 2016, Trump explained his view of torture and terrorism in an interview on This Week with George Stephanopoulos. We are living in a time that's as evil as any time that there has ever been, Trump said. You know, when I was a young man, I studied Medieval times. That's what they did, they chopped off heads. Trump went on to say he would authorize measures beyond waterboarding when asked if the US would chop off heads under Trump.

9. On Sweden and What Happened There Trump brought up immigration in Europe during a rally in February 2017. He appeared to mention some immigration-related event last night in Sweden that hadnt actually happened. "We've got to keep our country safe," he said. "You look at what's happening in Germany. You look at what's happening last night in Sweden. Sweden, who would believe this? Sweden. They took in large numbers. They're having problems like they never thought possible.

Trump later clarified the statement, yet again on Twitter. He said he wasnt referring to a news event that happened last night in Sweden, but rather, a Fox News story. My statement as to what's happening in Sweden was in reference to a story that was broadcast on @FoxNews concerning immigrants & Sweden, he wrote.

10. On being treated the most unfairly Delivering a speech to the graduating class at the U.S. Coast Guard Academy, Trump said, "No politician in history, and I say this with great surety, has been treated worse or more unfairly." That apparently includes politicians whohave actually been assassinated, which seemslike it should count for being treated "unfairly." Maybe he means he's been "unfairly" given more passes on bad behavior, like admitting sexual assault, than any other politician.

12. On the Panama Canal In a meeting with Panamanian President Juan Carlos Varela, Trump seemed to kind of, sort of take credit for the Panama Canal. "The Panama Canal is doing quite well. I think we did a good job building it, right a very good job," Trump said, to which Varela answered, "Yeah, about 100 years ago." While what Trump meant by "we" was probably "the United States," as Varela's comment suggests, there's still an air of Trump glomming on to past accomplishments that had nothing to do with him.

13. Kellyanne Conway On the Bowling Green Massacre Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway invented a terrorist attack that never happened when she mentioned the Bowling Green Massacre in a February interview with MSNBCs Chris Matthews. Conway was attempting to justify Trumps ban on travelers from seven predominantly Muslim countries, and claimed the media hadnt covered the attack. As the Washington Post reports, Conway also mentioned the massacre, which never took place, in two other interviews.

14. Sean Spicer On the Holocaust White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer got into trouble when he compared Syrias Bashar al-Assad and Adolf Hitler when discussing Trumps decision to bomb a Syrian airfield in response to a gas attack against civilians. ...Someone as despicable as Hitler who didn't even sink to using chemical weapons, Spicer said during a daily press briefing. Of course, the use of gas to murder millions of German Jews and other minority groups from within Germany and Europe was central to the Holocaust.

Spicer went on to clarify that he did, in fact, know about the Holocaust. "I think when you come to sarin gas, there was no -- he was not using the gas on his own people the same way that Assad is doing," Spicer said. "I mean, there was clearly, I understand your point, thank you. Thank you, I appreciate that. There was not in the, he brought them into the Holocaust center, I understand that." The historically accurate term for "Holocaust center" is "concentration camp," and at least 200,000 people killed in them were Jewish German citizens.

From the Bowling Green Massacre to the Civil War, you might call it alternative history

Since becoming president, Donald Trump has had a lot more occasion to talk about American history. He likes to remind people that "you know, I'm, like, a smart person," but he doesn't always seem to get it right. Here are 11 instances of Trump and his surrogates giving weirdo history lessons.

Read more:
'Real Time' Fact Check: How Liberals Really Reacted to Obama ...

Kevin DrumJun. 21, 2017 10:51 PM

Over at the Atlantic, Peter Beinart laments that liberals have become too doctrinaire over the past decade in their defense of illegal immigration:

Prominent liberals didnt oppose immigration a decade ago. Most acknowledged its benefits to Americas economy and culture. They supported a path to citizenship for the undocumented. Still, they routinely asserted that low-skilled immigrants depressed the wages of low-skilled American workers and strained Americas welfare state. And they were far more likely than liberals today are to acknowledge that, as Krugman put it, immigration is an intensely painful topic because it places basic principles in conflict.

Today, little of that ambivalence remains. In 2008, the Democratic platformreferred three times to people entering the country illegally. The immigration section of the 2016 platform didnt use the word illegal, or any variation of it, at all.

Why did the left move even further left on immigration? Beinart chalks it up to politics: Democrats began to believe theyd dominate elections forever if they could sew up the Hispanic vote, and that motivated them to become ever less compromising on issues important to their Hispanic base.

I suppose thats part of it, but Im surprised that Beinart doesnt mention the obvious: there have been two big attempts in the past decade to pass a moderate, compromise immigration bill. The first time was in 2006, when both the House and Senate passed bills by large margins. But thanks to a backlash from talk radio and social conservatives, the bills never went to conference and the effort died.

The second time was in 2013. A bill passed the Senate by a large, bipartisan majority, but once again it hit a backlash from the tea-party wing of the Republican Party. John Boehner never allowed the bill to come up for a vote in the House, and the effort died again.

UPDATE: My initial post used the wrong numbers for the effect of immigration on wages. The estimates below, along with the chart, have been corrected. Thanks to Jason Richwine for pointing out the error.

These two episodes have made it clear that compromise on immigration is pointless. That being the case, why bother playing Hamlet about the effect of illegal immigration on the wages of low-skilled natives? Especially since its largely a red herring anyway: its true that undocumented immigrants have an impact on the wages of low-skill native workers, but the effect is pretty moderate. Beinart repeatedly mentions the findings of a National Academies of Sciences report on immigration and the economy, but never mentions the precise number it comes up with: for low-skill native workers, an average of all studies suggests that an influx of even a million immigrants would only lower wages about 4.6 percent in the short run.1

The same is true for state and local spending. The NAS report estimates that new immigrants cost states a net of about $1,600 per year.2 This means that an influx of a million immigrants would create a net burden of $1.6 billion. Thats less than one-tenth of one percent of all state and local spending. Its a rounding error.

These numbers are small, and are used mostly as intellectual cover by opponents of illegal immigration. They are not even remotely the reason for opposition to comprehensive immigration reform, which comes mostly from educated native whites whose wages and taxes arent impacted more than a hair by illegal immigration. The real reason is almost purely cultural: dislike of non-English speakers, an inchoate fear of crime, and a vague sense that white America is fading away. But hardly anyone wants to admit that these are the real terms of the argument.

Quite a bit of new research has been done over the past decade, and the result has been, if anything, a reduction in the perceived economic effects of illegal immigration. The wage effects are roughly zero overall, and even for low-skill workers are fairly small in the short runand get smaller over time. The fiscal effects are even smaller, and become zero over the long run. Given all this, its hardly a surprise that supporters of comprehensive immigration reform no longer give economic arguments much attention.3

1This is the average of all studies in Table 5-2 that focus on high school dropouts. The mean result was a wage effect of -0.56 percent for an increase in the low-skill labor supply of 1 percent, which amounts to about 120,000 workers. That comes to -4.66 percent per million new immigrants.

2Table 9-6.

3This is not the post I intended to write when I started out. But after reading the NAS report, its the one I ended up with. Maybe tomorrow Ill write the post I originally had in mind.

Mother Jones is a nonprofit, and stories like this are made possible by readers like you. Donate or subscribe to help fund independent journalism.

Go here to see the original:
Liberals Haven't Lost Their Way On Immigration - Mother Jones